Coin toss

[AdamJT13]

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.

That's why you don't choose to receive in order to "make a statement," because you can do that on defense. I would almost always choose to defer in order to create the opportunity for back-to-back possessions. And by "almost always," I mean that I can't think of any reason to choose to receive at the start of a game, but there might be one in some weird circumstance.

 

[CowboyChris]

That's why you don't choose to receive in order to "make a statement," because you can do that on defense. I would almost always choose to defer in order to create the opportunity for back-to-back possessions. And by "almost always," I mean that I can't think of any reason to choose to receive at the start of a game, but there might be one in some weird circumstance.

i couldn't agree more, everyone knew we were going to into a very hostile enviroment up in Seattle, all week long everyone was talking about the 12th man, and what does genius boy Garrett do? he elects to recieve first get that crowd fired up early on. ill make the argument had we kicked off, we probably force them into a 3 and out and gather a little momentum to start the game. we pretty much held their offense in check the whole first half.

 

[TheDude]

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.)

Interesting....Im not sure about the first 10 minutes, but I got the following data

Dallas rank for Pts scored by quarter

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
2009 16 21 10 11
2010 13 15 5 11
2011 17 15 24 6

Since 2009, we are a better scoring second half team. Very average 1st quarter team. Not surprisingly, NO, NE, GNB, Phil all seem to be consistently high in 1st Qtr pts

Dallas rank for Pts scored by OPPONENT by quarter
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
2009 1 3 3 24
2010 25 26 23 30
2011 6 21 18 19

Surprisingly, I couldn't believe how good the 2009 defense was nor how good we were in the 1st quarter last year. No surprise was how repugnant 2010 was and even 2009 showed the 4th quarter story we are so familiar with




Dallas rank for Pts differential by quarter
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
2009 5 12 5 18
2010 18 23 10 25
2011 10 17 20 10

Surprisingly, I couldn't believe how good the 2009 was 4th quarter may have been what I expected

As good as the Defense was last year, if we could consistently put more points on the board early, that would translate into a different game. I think this has been a Garrett problem.

I did not adjust for turnovers, defensive scores etc. This year we have 10pts against us in the 1st quarter, but that is not the defenses fault in any way. Those numbers likely get washed out over an entire season....comparing to all teams, but maybe not.

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.

I am in agreement, I can't think of a good reason to NOT defer. Maybe, if you had a phenomenal running game the opponent had a quick strike offense (90s Cowboys v Bills) and you wanted to limit the time/possessions, take the crowd out etc. 90% was my "discretionary feel" as there is always exceptions to the 100% statement