Seattle scores to end the 1st and start the 2nd halves

[Established1971]

Giving up a TD to end the first half and then another to start the 2nd is almost always the kiss of death. I dont know how one could look up such a thing but this has happened to Dallas a few times and I would bet $ we lost all of those. I remember that happening in the NYG playoff game,

I am a big proponent for kicking off to start the game when you win the toss. Dallas has always been (even back to Garrett) a big lover of taking it first. I guess the reasoning is if you get the ball first then you have a chance to end up with one extra possession. But by that reasoning the reverse is true for the 2nd half, which is the more important half.

Taking the ball first and so frequently going for it on 4th in a risky part of the field isnt the style I would use. Its a ball control, timing and time management game.

But it all worked yesterday. I wonder if this is the first time they gave up two TD's like that and won.

 

[Chuck 54]

I think it’s more that our defense seems to give up the first drives of each half this year, quite often. He also knows our defense doesn’t play the run well. It’s not a strength. Pass rushing is our strength. So take the ball first if you have a good feel for the offensive game plan and the first possession. Get a lead right away and make the other team chase you.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Giving up a TD to end the first half and then another to start the 2nd is almost always the kiss of death. I dont know how one could look up such a thing but this has happened to Dallas a few times and I would bet $ we lost all of those. I remember that happening in the NYG playoff game,

I am a big proponent for kicking off to start the game when you win the toss. Dallas has always been (even back to Garrett) a big lover of taking it first. I guess the reasoning is if you get the ball first then you have a chance to end up with one extra possession. But by that reasoning the reverse is true for the 2nd half, which is the more important half.

Taking the ball first and so frequently going for it on 4th in a risky part of the field isnt the style I would use. Its a ball control, timing and time management game.

But it all worked yesterday. I wonder if this is the first time they gave up two TD's like that and won.

It didn't happen in the NYG playoff game. The Giants didn't score at all in the 3rd quarter in that game.

Also, the first and second halves are equally important. And it makes absolutely no difference whether you kick or receive to start the game.

Anyway...

• As you note, the Seahawks did it last night. Dallas won.
• The Rams did it earlier this year. Dallas won.
• The Bears did it in 2019 and won.
• Kansas City did it in 2017. You may remember that awful end-of-half play from their own 44 where Tyreek Hill wove through our defense for a TD. They scored to open the third, but Dallas won 28-17.
• Two other teams almost did it in 2017, the Chargers and Falcons. Both scored with a little over a minute left in the 2nd, so it doesn't really count. Both games were shellackings anyway, with Dallas losing by 20+ points.
• The Falcons did it in 2006. Dallas won 38-28.
• Washington almost did it in 2002: they scored with 1:55 left in the 2nd quarter. Dallas won 27-20.

As far as I can tell, that's every instance since 2001 of a team scoring a TD near the end of the 2nd quarter and then getting the ball to open the 3rd and scoring another TD. If we only look at the ones where the other team scored in the waning seconds of the 2nd quarter, Dallas has gone 4-1 in those games. If we include all games where the score came with less than 2 minutes left in the 2nd quarter, Dallas is 5-3.

So no, it's never been the kiss of death.

How many $ do you want to bet? (Shoot, I should have started with that.)

 

[nalam]

Giving up a TD to end the first half and then another to start the 2nd is almost always the kiss of death. I dont know how one could look up such a thing but this has happened to Dallas a few times and I would bet $ we lost all of those. I remember that happening in the NYG playoff game,

I am a big proponent for kicking off to start the game when you win the toss. Dallas has always been (even back to Garrett) a big lover of taking it first. I guess the reasoning is if you get the ball first then you have a chance to end up with one extra possession. But by that reasoning the reverse is true for the 2nd half, which is the more important half.

Taking the ball first and so frequently going for it on 4th in a risky part of the field isnt the style I would use. Its a ball control, timing and time management game.

But it all worked yesterday. I wonder if this is the first time they gave up two TD's like that and won.

Our D at home likes to play with the lead and that might have induced the decision to receive first, if not for the RZ goof ups we should have scored 7 First. Also it was freak execution from Seattle ( or our players underestimated) that they got 73 yard TD in response.
what was back breAking , the 1:30 TD they give up just before Half and the TD after they started 2nd half. ( which I hope is an anomaly and may be the effect of 3 games in 11 days )

 

[links18]

Yeah, we got two' fered.

 

[Established1971]

It didn't happen in the NYG playoff game. The Giants didn't score at all in the 3rd quarter in that game.

Also, the first and second halves are equally important. And it makes absolutely no difference whether you kick or receive to start the game.

Anyway...

• As you note, the Seahawks did it last night. Dallas won.
• The Rams did it earlier this year. Dallas won.
• The Bears did it in 2019 and won.
• Kansas City did it in 2017. You may remember that awful end-of-half play from their own 44 where Tyreek Hill wove through our defense for a TD. They scored to open the third, but Dallas won 28-17.
• Two other teams almost did it in 2017, the Chargers and Falcons. Both scored with a little over a minute left in the 2nd, so it doesn't really count. Both games were shellackings anyway, with Dallas losing by 20+ points.
• The Falcons did it in 2006. Dallas won 38-28.
• Washington almost did it in 2002: they scored with 1:55 left in the 2nd quarter. Dallas won 27-20.

As far as I can tell, that's every instance since 2001 of a team scoring a TD near the end of the 2nd quarter and then getting the ball to open the 3rd and scoring another TD. If we only look at the ones where the other team scored in the waning seconds of the 2nd quarter, Dallas has gone 4-1 in those games. If we include all games where the score came with less than 2 minutes left in the 2nd quarter, Dallas is 5-3.

So no, it's never been the kiss of death.

How many $ do you want to bet? (Shoot, I should have started with that.)

I am confusing the giant game with another important game, my bad

 

[JD_KaPow]

I am confusing the giant game with another important game, my bad.

Must be a really old game. It's never happened in a playoff game, at least not one Dallas lost.

 

[DogFace]

I don’t know exactly how to quantify why it’s bad. And I know the stats say it doesn’t matter which team kicked off to start the game. That there’s no advantage from that on who will win, but I disagree.

Scoring then getting the ball back after a score
can only happen in a game if you start the 2nd half with the ball. That’s a huge momentum advantage. Also, after the half you have a better idea what’s working and what’s not on offense.

Always elect to kick. Always.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Giving up a TD to end the first half and then another to start the 2nd is almost always the kiss of death.

It's called shooting yourself in the foot. The Cowboys won the toss and wanted the ball to start the game.

Had they scored it would have been different. But drive to the 2 only to kick a FG. Ugh!

DUMB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[JD_KaPow]

I don’t know exactly how to quantify why it’s bad. And I know the stats say it doesn’t matter which team kicked off to start the game. That there’s no advantage from that on who will win, but I disagree.

Scoring then getting the ball back after a score
can only happen in a game if you start the 2nd half with the ball. That’s a huge momentum advantage. Also, after the half you have a better idea what’s working and what’s not on offense.

Always elect to kick. Always.

You can't quantify why it's bad because it's not bad.

If the twofer is a huge momentum advantage that you can only get by kicking to start the game, you would think such a huge advantage would show up in outcomes. But it doesn't. There's no difference in actual results between teams that kick and teams the receive to start the game. It's a myth.

(I mean, giving up two TDs on consecutive drives is bad, and scoring two TDs on consecutive drives is good. The fact that halftime sits between them is of no consequence.)

 

[Streifenkarl]

Bland right out sucked yesterday. Let's hope he picks it up next week. Still a good kid of course.

 

[Streifenkarl]

Well they scored like 4 times to finally get their touchdown just before the half. This alone shows how much the defense sucked in this game. Atrocious. But that's the way it is sometimes. Dak came in and saved the day and now they have a long week to prepare for the Eagles with no injuries. I'll buy that for a dollar.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

It was stupid to take the ball first.

 

[JayFord]

sometimes you gotta win ugly....

Shawn Michaels Beat Undertaker in the first ever Hell in a Cell match....

was it pretty? no....was Shawn struting around after his victory with 2 women and flexing his muscles? no

he won it face down in his own blood and the rest of dx had to carry him out but he won

Philadelphia has won like this EVERY week!!!

against the patriots they won like this, against the commanders, heck even us theyve won this kinda ugly football

 

[DogFace]

You can't quantify why it's bad because it's not bad.

If the twofer is a huge momentum advantage that you can only get by kicking to start the game, you would think such a huge advantage would show up in outcomes. But it doesn't. There's no difference in actual results between teams that kick and teams the receive to start the game. It's a myth.

(I mean, giving up two TDs on consecutive drives is bad, and scoring two TDs on consecutive drives is good. The fact that halftime sits between them is of no consequence.)

There is normally a possession change after a score. Except if you score before half. Scoring 14 when the other team didn’t get the ball is an advantage. This twofer doesn’t always work, but when it does it’s an advantage.

And the results of wins/losses not being impacted by the kick is skewed because the person winning or losing the flip may be the best team more often or not.

The numbers, which I believe you’ve stated in the past, don’t tell the whole story of if the better team got the ball first or not. Having the ball first and being the best team wouldn’t matter as much as being the lesser team and losing the advantage of a possible 14-0 swing with no change of possession.

Seattle got this 14 point swing and it helped them keep the score close. But just being in a game for a half and learning what worked on offense and what kind of game it is leads to an advantage for that first drive after half and game planning for that drive at half. *I believe (with zero data to back it up) the D has a better chance to stop the offense on the first drive. Emotions and being hyped up to start the game help the D more I believe. The offense might even be more nervous to start where on D I don’t think nervous energy is as bad.

I know you’re a stat guy. I respect that for sure and I realize all the knowledge it gives you. On this I couldn’t disagree more. I’d like to see some numbers on scoring on the first drive of the game vs scoring on the first drive of the 2nd half, but even if that was even my gut and experience would still likely tell me it’s better to kick.

 

[Trendnet]

It didn't happen in the NYG playoff game. The Giants didn't score at all in the 3rd quarter in that game.

Also, the first and second halves are equally important. And it makes absolutely no difference whether you kick or receive to start the game.

Anyway...

• As you note, the Seahawks did it last night. Dallas won.
• The Rams did it earlier this year. Dallas won.
• The Bears did it in 2019 and won.
• Kansas City did it in 2017. You may remember that awful end-of-half play from their own 44 where Tyreek Hill wove through our defense for a TD. They scored to open the third, but Dallas won 28-17.
• Two other teams almost did it in 2017, the Chargers and Falcons. Both scored with a little over a minute left in the 2nd, so it doesn't really count. Both games were shellackings anyway, with Dallas losing by 20+ points.
• The Falcons did it in 2006. Dallas won 38-28.
• Washington almost did it in 2002: they scored with 1:55 left in the 2nd quarter. Dallas won 27-20.

As far as I can tell, that's every instance since 2001 of a team scoring a TD near the end of the 2nd quarter and then getting the ball to open the 3rd and scoring another TD. If we only look at the ones where the other team scored in the waning seconds of the 2nd quarter, Dallas has gone 4-1 in those games. If we include all games where the score came with less than 2 minutes left in the 2nd quarter, Dallas is 5-3.

So no, it's never been the kiss of death.

How many $ do you want to bet? (Shoot, I should have started with that.)

That's fine and all... But have you calculated @Established1971 feelings into your facts?

 

[plymkr]

It didn't happen in the NYG playoff game. The Giants didn't score at all in the 3rd quarter in that game.

Also, the first and second halves are equally important. And it makes absolutely no difference whether you kick or receive to start the game.

Anyway...

• As you note, the Seahawks did it last night. Dallas won.
• The Rams did it earlier this year. Dallas won.
• The Bears did it in 2019 and won.
• Kansas City did it in 2017. You may remember that awful end-of-half play from their own 44 where Tyreek Hill wove through our defense for a TD. They scored to open the third, but Dallas won 28-17.
• Two other teams almost did it in 2017, the Chargers and Falcons. Both scored with a little over a minute left in the 2nd, so it doesn't really count. Both games were shellackings anyway, with Dallas losing by 20+ points.
• The Falcons did it in 2006. Dallas won 38-28.
• Washington almost did it in 2002: they scored with 1:55 left in the 2nd quarter. Dallas won 27-20.

As far as I can tell, that's every instance since 2001 of a team scoring a TD near the end of the 2nd quarter and then getting the ball to open the 3rd and scoring another TD. If we only look at the ones where the other team scored in the waning seconds of the 2nd quarter, Dallas has gone 4-1 in those games. If we include all games where the score came with less than 2 minutes left in the 2nd quarter, Dallas is 5-3.

So no, it's never been the kiss of death.

How many $ do you want to bet? (Shoot, I should have started with that.)

Wow, nice research. I’m impressed

 

[JD_KaPow]

There is normally a possession change after a score. Except if you score before half. Scoring 14 when the other team didn’t get the ball is an advantage. This twofer doesn’t always work, but when it does it’s an advantage.

And the results of wins/losses not being impacted by the kick is skewed because the person winning or losing the flip may be the best team more often or not.

The numbers, which I believe you’ve stated in the past, don’t tell the whole story of if the better team got the ball first or not. Having the ball first and being the best team wouldn’t matter as much as being the lesser team and losing the advantage of a possible 14-0 swing with no change of possession.

Seattle got this 14 point swing and it helped them keep the score close. But just being in a game for a half and learning what worked on offense and what kind of game it is leads to an advantage for that first drive after half and game planning for that drive at half. *I believe (with zero data to back it up) the D has a better chance to stop the offense on the first drive. Emotions and being hyped up to start the game help the D more I believe. The offense might even be more nervous to start where on D I don’t think nervous energy is as bad.

I know you’re a stat guy. I respect that for sure and I realize all the knowledge it gives you. On this I couldn’t disagree more. I’d like to see some numbers on scoring on the first drive of the game vs scoring on the first drive of the 2nd half, but even if that was even my gut and experience would still likely tell me it’s better to kick.

This is something where the natural experiment exists. For many years, teams didn’t have the option to defer, so it was perfectly random who kicked and who received to start the game. And it made no difference. If that’s not convincing, I don’t know what else to tell you, since your argument is entirely based on vibes.

I tried looking at opening-drive outcomes vs. all drive outcomes, but it gets very complicated very fast. Opening drives almost always start around the 25: others can start anywhere. When you look at all drives, you have a lot more that end in turnovers on downs (because of teams playing catch-up late in games), and fewer that end in FGs (same reason). On the other hand, teams playing catch-up are more aggressive and will tend to score more often (especially facing prevents). Anyway, it's hard to narrow it down to comparable drives: it can be done but I'm too lazy. My initial forays don't indicate much difference in scoring rate but I can't say for sure.

 

[JD_KaPow]

This is something where the natural experiment exists. For many years, teams didn’t have the option to defer, so it was perfectly random who kicked and who received to start the game. And it made no difference. If that’s not convincing, I don’t know what else to tell you, since your argument is entirely based on vibes.

I tried looking at opening-drive outcomes vs. all drive outcomes, but it gets very complicated very fast. Opening drives almost always start around the 25: others can start anywhere. When you look at all drives, you have a lot more that end in turnovers on downs (because of teams playing catch-up late in games), and fewer that end in FGs (same reason). On the other hand, teams playing catch-up are more aggressive and will tend to score more often (especially facing prevents). Anyway, it's hard to narrow it down to comparable drives: it can be done but I'm too lazy. My initial forays don't indicate much difference in scoring rate but I can't say for sure.

Oh, you were asking about opening drives of the game vs. opening drives of the 3rd quarter. That I can look at easily. And you're right, teams score on more 3rd-quarter opening drives than 1st-quarter opening drives: 33.8% vs. 33.4%. I'm inclined to believe that's not a significant difference, personally.

 

[DogFace]

This is something where the natural experiment exists. For many years, teams didn’t have the option to defer, so it was perfectly random who kicked and who received to start the game. And it made no difference. If that’s not convincing, I don’t know what else to tell you, since your argument is entirely based on vibes.

I tried looking at opening-drive outcomes vs. all drive outcomes, but it gets very complicated very fast. Opening drives almost always start around the 25: others can start anywhere. When you look at all drives, you have a lot more that end in turnovers on downs (because of teams playing catch-up late in games), and fewer that end in FGs (same reason). On the other hand, teams playing catch-up are more aggressive and will tend to score more often (especially facing prevents). Anyway, it's hard to narrow it down to comparable drives: it can be done but I'm too lazy. My initial forays don't indicate much difference in scoring rate but I can't say for sure.

What about starting 2nd half drives vs first half?

That said. I get your point and realize I can’t really make mine convincingly. Though, getting that 14 point possible swing with no possession change in between can only happen after the half and seems to be an advantage. But seems isn’t proof.

*I just read the above post after I typed this one, but yes. I wonder if that drive is any more or less successful for the offense.