Coin toss

[CowboyChris]

Im not exactly 100% sure, but i thought we won the coin toss and elected to recieve, shouldnt we defer to the second half in hostile enviroment, let our defense take the field?? this wouldve been a totally different game had we kicked off, instead of fumbling the opening kickoff

 

[a_minimalist]

I'm a huge fan of deferring. I'd do it 50% of the time if I could. I'm not sure it would have made much of a difference though.

 

[Picksix]

Most coaches take the ball. They want to score first and make the other team play catch up.

 

[TheDude]

We are one of the slowest starting teams in the league. Deferring would be preferred about 90% of the time

 

[AdamJT13]

We are one of the slowest starting teams in the league.

We're not, actually. We tied for ninth in the league last season in offensive touchdowns in the first 10 minutes of the game. (The eight teams ahead of us were the Bills, Falcons, Giants, Packers, Panthers, Patriots, Saints and Texans.) Romo does tend to start slowly, though. (His career first-quarter passer rating is 79.1, and he is over 100.0 in every other quarter, including overtime.)

Deferring would be preferred about 90% of the time

I would say more like 99%. I think it's a huge advantage to have the ball late in the second quarter knowing that you'll also get the ball to start the third. You could get back-to-back scores (like we did against the Giants) and take control of the game. Or you could use the clock and ensure that the opponent doesn't get enough time to score before halftime, knowing that you'll get the ball right back after halftime. If you have to kick off to start the second half, you don't have that luxury.

Against Seattle, it would have been especially better to defer so that the Seahawks have to put their weaker unit on the field first. And in case nobody on our staff noticed, the Seattle crowd is quiet when their offense is on the field. Stupidly choosing to receive meant that the Seahawks got to use their two biggest strengths right away -- their defense and their crowd.

 

[ologan]

I'm a huge fan of deferring. I'd do it 50% of the time if I could. I'm not sure it would have made much of a difference though.

Hindsight is the old proverbial 20/20. I always like the option of getting the ball to start the second half. If you're fortunate enough to have the ball just before half time and score,a score to start the second half is huge. That was one of the hallmarks of the 90's teams.

 

[Doomsday101]

Im not exactly 100% sure, but i thought we won the coin toss and elected to recieve, shouldnt we defer to the second half in hostile enviroment, let our defense take the field?? this wouldve been a totally different game had we kicked off, instead of fumbling the opening kickoff

Many teams will take the ball when they win the coin toss. Myself I always like starting on defense but I'm not going to sit here and say it was a mistake and there was no way of knowing the opening kickoff return would be fumbled. This was a loss and a bad loss but the coin toss is a non factor.

 

[FiveRings]

We're not, actually. We tied for ninth in the league last season in offensive touchdowns in the first 10 minutes of the game. (The eight teams ahead of us were the Bills, Falcons, Giants, Packers, Panthers, Patriots, Saints and Texans.) Romo does tend to start slowly, though. (His career first-quarter passer rating is 79.1, and he is over 100.0 in every other quarter, including overtime.)



I would say more like 99%. I think it's a huge advantage to have the ball late in the second quarter knowing that you'll also get the ball to start the third. You could get back-to-back scores (like we did against the Giants) and take control of the game. Or you could use the clock and ensure that the opponent doesn't get enough time to score before halftime, knowing that you'll get the ball right back after halftime. If you have to kick off to start the second half, you don't have that luxury.

Against Seattle, it would have been especially better to defer so that the Seahawks have to put their weaker unit on the field first. And in case nobody on our staff noticed, the Seattle crowd is quiet when their offense is on the field. Stupidly choosing to receive meant that the Seahawks got to use their two biggest strengths right away -- their defense and their crowd.

Are you guys really crunching numbers two games into the season? Give me a break, this is really getting ridiculous.

 

[ufcrules1]

Many teams will take the ball when they win the coin toss. Myself I always like starting on defense but I'm not going to sit here and say it was a mistake and there was no way of knowing the opening kickoff return would be fumbled. This was a loss and a bad loss but the coin toss is a non factor.

When Felix Jones is the one fielding the kickoff.. ANYTHING can happen back there. Deferring would have been a better idea in this game with a hostile crowd and a rookie QB leading their team. I could see us stopping them and then getting good field position.

 

[Doomsday101]

When Felix Jones is the one fielding the kickoff.. ANYTHING can happen back there. Deferring would have been a better idea in this game with a hostile crowd and a rookie QB leading their team. I could see us stopping them and then getting good field position.

If they felt that way he would not be back there. Coin toss had nothing to do with the loss. You can play the what if game all you want but you will play by yourself. Do you even read the crud you post?

 

[YosemiteSam]

IMO, deferring is only an option if you have a great defense.

Playing from behind definitely can have an impact on how a team plays a game. You don't want playing from behind to take you out of your game plan. If I wasn't very confident my defense could stop them, I probably wouldn't defer.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Are you guys really crunching numbers two games into the season? Give me a break, this is really getting ridiculous.

I'm guessing you don't know who AdamJT13 is around here. It's okay to disagree with him, but you would know your statement is ridiculous.

 

[jazzcat22]

Im not exactly 100% sure, but i thought we won the coin toss and elected to recieve, shouldnt we defer to the second half in hostile enviroment, let our defense take the field?? this wouldve been a totally different game had we kicked off, instead of fumbling the opening kickoff

Depends on weather too. If windy, you want the wind at your back in the 4th quarter in an outdoor stadium.

Other than that, take the ball first. Establish an offensive plan, take the home crowd out early.

 

[FiveRings]

I'm guessing you don't know who AdamJT13 is around here. It's okay to disagree with him, but you would know your statement is ridiculous.

Nope, still not following, sorry.

 

[a_minimalist]

Hindsight is the old proverbial 20/20.

Exactly

 

[links18]

We're not, actually. We tied for ninth in the league last season in offensive touchdowns in the first 10 minutes of the game. (The eight teams ahead of us were the Bills, Falcons, Giants, Packers, Panthers, Patriots, Saints and Texans.) Romo does tend to start slowly, though. (His career first-quarter passer rating is 79.1, and he is over 100.0 in every other quarter, including overtime.)



I would say more like 99%. I think it's a huge advantage to have the ball late in the second quarter knowing that you'll also get the ball to start the third. You could get back-to-back scores (like we did against the Giants) and take control of the game. Or you could use the clock and ensure that the opponent doesn't get enough time to score before halftime, knowing that you'll get the ball right back after halftime. If you have to kick off to start the second half, you don't have that luxury.

Against Seattle, it would have been especially better to defer so that the Seahawks have to put their weaker unit on the field first. And in case nobody on our staff noticed, the Seattle crowd is quiet when their offense is on the field. Stupidly choosing to receive meant that the Seahawks got to use their two biggest strengths right away -- their defense and their crowd.

As it turned out, we ended up putting their offense on the field first anyway.

 

[AdamJT13]

Are you guys really crunching numbers two games into the season? Give me a break, this is really getting ridiculous.

I'm not sure what your complaint is. Discussing whether it's better to receive or defer can be done anytime -- in the offseason, after Week 2, after Week 11, doesn't matter. It's a strategic issue.

 

[FiveRings]

I'm not sure what your complaint is. Discussing whether it's better to receive or defer can be done anytime -- in the offseason, after Week 2, after Week 11, doesn't matter. It's a strategic issue.

Agreed but it's a 50/50 thing and you can make good cases for deferring and good cases for taking the ball so at the end of the day I don't really think it's a matter that deserves all that much discussing.

But my main complaint is that after a good W in Seattle you can't tell me we're going to be talking about the coin toss. This is merely us going crazy with our free time and knit picking everything we can from Sundays massacre.

 

[AdamJT13]

Agreed but it's a 50/50 thing and you can make good cases for deferring and good cases for taking the ball so at the end of the day I don't really think it's a matter that deserves all that much discussing.

Well, see, you do have an opinion about it. I have a different opinion. If you don't want to discuss it, then you can avoid the thread.

But my main complaint is that after a good W in Seattle you can't tell me we're going to be talking about the coin toss. This is merely us going crazy with our free time and knit picking everything we can from Sundays massacre.

We have discussed the issue many times on this board, including after a blowout win at Tennessee in 2006 and after a big Monday night win over Philadelphia in 2008.

 

[FiveRings]

Well, see, you do have an opinion about it. I have a different opinion. If you don't want to discuss it, then you can avoid the thread.



We have discussed the issue many times on this board, including after a blowout win at Tennessee in 2006 and after a big Monday night win over Philadelphia in 2008.

Of course I have an opinion, but I don't think the decision is really that big of a deal. Starting a game it's important to make a statement, whether it be starting with the ball first and putting up a quick 6 or starting out on defense and sending the offense away on a 3 and out.