The Senator Posted September 30, 2009 Posted September 30, 2009 Winners always want the ball but, apparently Dick Jauron never wants it. He'll even punt it away when down by 10 with time running out -the freakin' loser just doesn't want the damned ball. Maybe it's 'cause he doesn't have a clue what to do with it when he has it - march downfield and score! Hey Dick - why not heed the advice of...
Max Fischer Posted September 30, 2009 Posted September 30, 2009 Of course, nearly every coach in the league thinks you're wrong; but, please, proceed with the useless rant.
The Senator Posted September 30, 2009 Posted September 30, 2009 A reason to defer is that it gives you the chance to have two consecutive possessions - one at the end of the first half and one at the beginning of the second. It's the right move. Yes, but it's just that - a chance to have the ball at the end of the half, certainly not a guarantee. And, in Jauron's case, does it really matter if he's got possession for the last drive of the half? Even if there's a chance to score, he's gonna kneel on the football - or worse, punt it away ('cause it's hard to score in the NFL). Better to do like New Orleans did with the opening kickoff - march down the field and score.
bowery4 Posted September 30, 2009 Posted September 30, 2009 Yes, but it's just that - a chance to have the ball at the end of the half, certainly not a guarantee. And, in Jauron's case, does it really matter if he's got possession for the last drive of the half? Even if there's a chance to score, he's gonna kneel on the football - or worse, punt it away ('cause it's hard to score in the NFL). Better to do like New Orleans did with the opening kickoff - march down the field and score. hate to say it but that is a good point
stuckincincy Posted September 30, 2009 Posted September 30, 2009 That's the logic behind deferring - think about it. You have a 50/50 chance to have two consecutive possessions (end of half/beginning of second half). You can either open up the floodgates and take a big lead with no response or stanch the bloodflow and possibly get back into it if you're losing. It makes sense to defer. Every teams' defense (theoretically) adapts over the halftime break based on first half performance - time to think things over. The defense you face after the opening kickoff is different that the one you face at the start of the 3rd. Again, I would never defer unless wind was a factor. I won't pass up the opportunity to catch the opposition before they get their "game legs" working. I also think it's wrong to send the message to the players that you are playing "strategery" games.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted September 30, 2009 Posted September 30, 2009 Agree with the original poster. Teams don't always defer...just like they don't always punt on 4th and one. Each situation is different. Last year in the home opener, Jauron elected to receive. He said he did so because he wanted to "whip up the crowd." The Bills won that game 34-10. To all those claiming that deferring the opening kickoff usually results in back to back possessions (end of 1st half-beginning of 2nd half) please cite some proof of that. In the Seattle game above which I cite, the Bills received the opening kickoff and also had the ball at the end of the first half. Defering alows a coaching staff a full half to see the defense and make adjustments at halftime in order to tak the advantage in the first drive of the second half... More dogmatic hogwash (hogmatic dogwash?). Both teams make adjustments at halftime. It's only helpful when your coaching staff is better than the other coaching staff. So what if we make adjustments? Don't you think it's likely that the Saints would end up one step ahead of us in this chess match? That's certainly how the 2nd half played out. A reason to defer is that it gives you the chance to have two consecutive possessions - one at the end of the first half and one at the beginning of the second. It's the right move. Where is the evidence of this statement, Dave? As I mentioned already, the Bills received last year in the opener against Seattle and also had the ball at the end of the first half. In last week's game, the Saints received the opening kickoff and also had the ball at the end of the first half. Deferring is not a huge, raging issue but to me, it's another indication of the "deep inside the box," mentality this coach has. The basic inability to recognize when rules are to be complied with and when they are to broken. We were playing against the best offense in the NFL. Isn't that a good enough reason to have the ball first?
ricojes Posted September 30, 2009 Posted September 30, 2009 I'm not sure you're getting the point. The only possession that matters is the very first one. Period. /sarcasm. No, the point is DJ is wrong no matter what he does...
stuckincincy Posted September 30, 2009 Posted September 30, 2009 We were playing against the best offense in the NFL. Isn't that a good enough reason to have the ball first? The opening drive: 10 plays, 82 yards, 4:56 minutes of possession. NO 7, BUF .
Ramius Posted September 30, 2009 Posted September 30, 2009 Agree with the original poster. Teams don't always defer...just like they don't always punt on 4th and one. Each situation is different. Last year in the home opener, Jauron elected to receive. He said he did so because he wanted to "whip up the crowd." The Bills won that game 34-10. To all those claiming that deferring the opening kickoff usually results in back to back possessions (end of 1st half-beginning of 2nd half) please cite some proof of that. In the Seattle game above which I cite, the Bills received the opening kickoff and also had the ball at the end of the first half. More dogmatic hogwash (hogmatic dogwash?). Both teams make adjustments at halftime. It's only helpful when your coaching staff is better than the other coaching staff. So what if we make adjustments? Don't you think it's likely that the Saints would end up one step ahead of us in this chess match? That's certainly how the 2nd half played out. Where is the evidence of this statement, Dave? As I mentioned already, the Bills received last year in the opener against Seattle and also had the ball at the end of the first half. In last week's game, the Saints received the opening kickoff and also had the ball at the end of the first half. Deferring is not a huge, raging issue but to me, it's another indication of the "deep inside the box," mentality this coach has. The basic inability to recognize when rules are to be complied with and when they are to broken. We were playing against the best offense in the NFL. Isn't that a good enough reason to have the ball first? Using 2 games is a BS argument. As Dave said, it isn't guaranteed you will get 2 consecutive possessions, but i can tell you one thing; by choosing to receive, you guarantee that your team will NOT get 2 consecutive possessions. Deferring is the right thing to to. I'll trash dicky j for lots of things, but deferring isn't one of them.
Ramius Posted September 30, 2009 Posted September 30, 2009 Every teams' defense (theoretically) adapts over the halftime break based on first half performance - time to think things over. The defense you face after the opening kickoff is different that the one you face at the start of the 3rd. Again, I would never defer unless wind was a factor. I won't pass up the opportunity to catch the opposition before they get their "game legs" working. I also think it's wrong to send the message to the players that you are playing "strategery" games. So offenses don't adjust at halftime? Deferring isn't "strategery," its simply intelligent football. It maximizes the chances your team gets to score.
NewHampshireBillsFan Posted September 30, 2009 Posted September 30, 2009 I would only defer if wind was a factor, so as to have at my back in the 4th. If not, I take the ball. Defenses are reactive to what I do. I own the snap. On the first series, defensive players are tense, and their bodies have yet to unlimber and get into "game groove." Teams scoring on opening drives isn't uncommon. This is the key point I think. The wind is usually a factor for home games. Having the wind in the 4th quarter is very important. On the road the crowd can be really revved up at the start of a game and fire up a defense if the visiting team has the ball. Of course it can also fire up the home offense if they have the ball.
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted September 30, 2009 Posted September 30, 2009 Before they ever changed this rule allowing you to defer, whenever the coin toss was done, I'd always root for the Bills to lose the toss as I like the idea of playing D first. If you don't score big momentum killer for the game.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted September 30, 2009 Posted September 30, 2009 Before they ever changed this rule allowing you to defer, whenever the coin toss was done, I'd always root for the Bills to lose the toss as I like the idea of playing D first. If you don't score big momentum killer for the game. That may be your preference...but isn't the bolded above exactly what it means to "play not to lose?"
The Big Cat Posted September 30, 2009 Posted September 30, 2009 No, the point is DJ is wrong no matter what he does... Yeah, but rather than fight that fight, I've just decided to wait until after we destroy the Dolphins when that particular claim basically goes to rest for another six days.
Recommended Posts