Enough with the "deferring" criticism

[BADOLBILZ]

I'm not any happier with Jauron than anyone is, but deferring the kickoff is absolutely the right play for this and most every team.

 

Here is why:

 

Because posession is not alternated from the end of one half to the beginning of the next, by deferring it is then possible to have two consecutive posessions by having the ball last in the first half and first in the second half. Getting the opportunity to score twice without the opponents offense seeing the field is a huge momentum swing, equivalent to scoring and then scoring again off of a turnover. Conversely, by deferring you guarantee that you WON'T GIVE UP two consecutive scores without somehow making a mistake and turning the ball over.

 

In essence, deferring gives you the opportunity to blow a game open or prevent another team from blowing it open against you.

 

Now, if you have a DOMINANT offense, then maybe you play it differently. Get the lead and try to take your opponent out of their game. But short of that, you defer.

 

In addition, if you are concerned about crowd noise, the beginning of the second half is the quietest time of most any competitive game. If you are home, you want their offense off the field at that point. If you are on the road, you want your offense out there.

[murra]

What you said was nice...Except that it has backfired every damn time. Our defense is horrible on the first possession (due to our under prepared coaching staff) and we play from behind every time we defer. I like the two consecutive logic, but deferring isn't working. It's that simple. Nice logic, not working. I don't know how you can even debate the issue. It isn't working. Haha, there isn't anything else to it.

[GG]

I'm not any happier with Jauron than anyone is, but deferring the kickoff is absolutely the right play for this and most every team.

 

Here is why:

 

Because posession is not alternated from the end of one half to the beginning of the next, by deferring it is then possible to have two consecutive posessions by having the ball last in the first half and first in the second half. Getting the opportunity to score twice without the opponents offense seeing the field is a huge momentum swing, equivalent to scoring and then scoring again off of a turnover. Conversely, by deferring you guarantee that you WON'T GIVE UP two consecutive scores without somehow making a mistake and turning the ball over.

 

In essence, deferring gives you the opportunity to blow a game open or prevent another team from blowing it open against you.

 

Now, if you have a DOMINANT offense, then maybe you play it differently. Get the lead and try to take your opponent out of their game. But short of that, you defer.

 

In addition, if you are concerned about crowd noise, the beginning of the second half is the quietest time of most any competitive game. If you are home, you want their offense off the field at that point. If you are on the road, you want your offense out there.

 

Your scenario then needs a coach who will actually use the last drive of the 1st half to try to score.

[Dr. Fong]

I agree. I think deferring is a great strategy. It gives you the opportunity to get your defense out there and get a quick stop and have a huge advantage in field position. I don't have any stats to back it up, but I wonder how many teams actually score on the opening drive of the game. Plus as you mentioned it can really help to get that ball to start the second half.

[Erik]

What you said was nice...Except that it has backfired every damn time. Our defense is horrible on the first possession (due to our under prepared coaching staff) and we play from behind every time we defer. I like the two consecutive logic, but deferring isn't working. It's that simple. Nice logic, not working. I don't know how you can even debate the issue. It isn't working. Haha, there isn't anything else to it.

 

Actually it did kinda work this week...we held Miami on their first drive and then they pinned us deep setting up JP to throw a bomb on third and short and give the ball back to the Dolphins with prime field position and setting up a score for them.

[ieatcrayonz]

What you said was nice...Except that it has backfired every damn time. Our defense is horrible on the first possession (due to our under prepared coaching staff) and we play from behind every time we defer. I like the two consecutive logic, but deferring isn't working. It's that simple. Nice logic, not working. I don't know how you can even debate the issue. It isn't working. Haha, there isn't anything else to it.

If our defense is horrible on the first possession what will make them better if the first possession comes after our offense had the ball? Will sitting on the bench a few extra minutes make them more prepared?

[murra]

If our defense is horrible on the first possession what will make them better if the first possession comes after our offense had the ball? Will sitting on the bench a few extra minutes make them more prepared?

 

In a game of momentum, if your offense scores on the first drive it will often fire up our defense, yes.

[Erik]

If our defense is horrible on the first possession what will make them better if the first possession comes after our offense had the ball? Will sitting on the bench a few extra minutes make them more prepared?

 

Well those three plays off at the beginning may get them more prepared than if they had to start right away...

[ieatcrayonz]

In a game of momentum, if your offense scores on the first drive it will often fire up our defense, yes.

Our offense average .75 points per quarter.

[BuffOrange]

Did I miss the previous dozen threads on this that made this thread necessary?

[SKOOBY]

Your scenario then needs a coach who will actually use the last drive of the 1st half to try to score.

 

Why try for extra points when you have timeouts and time on the clock?? Better to hand it off when you need to be passing and throwing low on jump balls, very logical play calling.

[Sisyphean Bills]

Your scenario then needs a coach who will actually use the last drive of the 1st half to try to score.

Well, you don't want to wear your guys out. It's a long season.

[Ramius]

I'll agree and add that with deferring, you potentially give your offense 1 extra possession on the second half as opposed to the first half. An extra possession in the second quarter could get you some extra points. An extra possession in the 4th quarter could give you the win.

[MRW]

The biggest thing for me is criticizing Jauron over deferring just seems so... inane. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a coach who wouldn't defer, and yet people are asking questions about this? Not about poor overall preparation, terrible challenges, and wasted timeouts?

[reddogblitz]

How is "deferring" different from electing to kick?

 

I'm old school. Give me the ball.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

The biggest thing for me is criticizing Jauron over deferring just seems so... inane. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a coach who wouldn't defer, and yet people are asking questions about this? Not about poor overall preparation, terrible challenges, and wasted timeouts?

 

The problem with THIS team deferring is that the defense can't stop anybody.

 

They've given up WAY too many 1st quarter scores. this year and they're simply not built from a coaching or talent perspective to mount comebacks.

[Beerball]

I'm not any happier with Jauron than anyone is, but deferring the kickoff is absolutely the right play for this and most every team.

 

Here is why:

 

Because posession is not alternated from the end of one half to the beginning of the next, by deferring it is then possible to have two consecutive posessions by having the ball last in the first half and first in the second half. Getting the opportunity to score twice without the opponents offense seeing the field is a huge momentum swing, equivalent to scoring and then scoring again off of a turnover. Conversely, by deferring you guarantee that you WON'T GIVE UP two consecutive scores without somehow making a mistake and turning the ball over.

 

In essence, deferring gives you the opportunity to blow a game open or prevent another team from blowing it open against you.

 

Now, if you have a DOMINANT offense, then maybe you play it differently. Get the lead and try to take your opponent out of their game. But short of that, you defer.

 

In addition, if you are concerned about crowd noise, the beginning of the second half is the quietest time of most any competitive game. If you are home, you want their offense off the field at that point. If you are on the road, you want your offense out there.

What if you have a dominant return game and you are playing at home and your defense has shown that they are vulnerable early in games? A big return or God forbid one taken all the way will fire up the fans in a huge way. Sorry Badol...for this team (IMO) it is not correct to defer at home. You can sway me when we're on the road, but with this team again, I'm still leaning towards give me the damn ball.

[marauderswr80]

It is a great idea. If you are down 14 heading into the 2nd half at least you have the ball to try and cut that in half, but if the shoes on the other foot you have a chance to put the other team away. I dont have any problems of Jauron doing that.

[BuffaloBill]

What you said was nice...Except that it has backfired every damn time. Our defense is horrible on the first possession (due to our under prepared coaching staff) and we play from behind every time we defer. I like the two consecutive logic, but deferring isn't working. It's that simple. Nice logic, not working. I don't know how you can even debate the issue. It isn't working. Haha, there isn't anything else to it.

 

 

The downside to what you say is that our offense is even less likely to perform or to be prepared. You hang your hopes on special teams which do perform at a high level but are not going to score all the time.

[marauderswr80]

The downside to what you say is that our offense is even less likely to perform or to be prepared. You hang your hopes on special teams which do perform at a high level but are not going to score all the time.

 

As of late, McKelvin has been nice on returns. The kick coverage has been solid, but the one thing that has not been.....Brian Moorman, his punts lately have been average at best and sometimes below average. I dont recall him getting off a nice long kick as of late......