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

[The Natural]

The problem isnt getting the ball first. The problem is the defense couldn’t stop a nosebleed. Whatever the down and distance was, there was absolutely no excuse to let the receiver get behind the defense at the end of the first half. Poor coaching and poor execution.

 

[Adiba1977]

Bingo why does this coach not always defer. Stop being a bond head. Just do what everyone else does. Don’t need be cute and different.

 

[speedkilz88]

They want to get an early lead.

 

[Creeper]

I am still curious about the TD at the end of the first half. With 13 seconds left Smith throws to Lockett in the end zone covered by Bland who gets called for DPI. Why was Bland alone in defending that throw with 13 seconds left? Shouldn't the defense has been sitting at the goal line preventing that pass from being completed? While worrying about giving up a FG, they gave up a TD.

Also, Dallas gave them 2 first downs earlier in the drive with offsides penalties. Penalties not only give up yards, they stop the clock. The defense seemed so out of sorts for 3 quarters.

 

[Momanpr100]

I think Seattle won the coin toss and elected to kick the ball

 

[Runwildboys]

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.

I disagree. We know this team plays better with a lead, so starting off with a score is a good way to establish that lead. If our defense was as good as advertised, maybe then I could see kicking off first, if given the choice.

Also, I don't really see "momentum" being in play after the halftime break.

 

[blueblood70]

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.

If you think about it 80% of the games this year this defense is giving up points on the first drive of every game and they've given up a lot of drives coming out of the half some kind of score this is not how you play great defense this is a problem.... Somehow Dan Quinn in his defense is getting a lot of excuses and they're in denial but this has been a problem all year the three losses this year you can put most of that on the defense I'm not gonna say all of it but this defense is not playing as most of us expected them to play they're very average at best they are boom or bust their opportunistic but they are not a shutdown defense that you can count on to keep the score low against the better teams...

 

[Runwildboys]

I think Seattle won the coin toss and elected to kick the ball

I was thinking that too, but wasn't sure.

 

[DogFace]

I disagree. We know this team plays better with a lead, so starting off with a score is a good way to establish that lead. If our defense was as good as advertised, maybe then I could see kicking off first, if given the choice.

Also, I don't really see "momentum" being in play after the halftime break.

I see getting the ball back with no change of possession after a big score as momentum. So we disagree.

 

[Runwildboys]

I see getting the ball back with no change of possession after a big score as momentum. So we disagree.

We do on this subject, but that's fine.

But I will ask one thing. Do you think it kills momentum when a defensive player fakes (or seems to fake) an injury to slow down an offense?

 

[JD_KaPow]

I think Seattle won the coin toss and elected to kick the ball

No, Dallas elected to receive.

 

[JD_KaPow]

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.

Sure, scoring 14 straight points correlates pretty strongly with winning. But the fact that there's no possession in between isn't that big a deal.

It's about the number of possessions, not the order of possessions. If you receive the ball and then get a drive at the end of the half (either half), you gained a possession over your opponent. That's much more significant than the order in which you got your possessions (one before the half and one right after).

 

[conner01]

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.

I generally like to defer but when your offense is hot it’s nice to get out to a lead before they touch the ball. And that decision generally doesn’t effect how many possessions you get

 

[DogFace]

I was thinking that too, but wasn't sure.

Sure, scoring 14 straight points correlates pretty strongly with winning. But the fact that there's no possession in between isn't that big a deal.

It's about the number of possessions, not the order of possessions. If you receive the ball and then get a drive at the end of the half (either half), you gained a possession over your opponent. That's much more significant than the order in which you got your possessions (one before the half and one right after).

Let’s see the 2nd half vs 1st scores by the offense.

I know in my brain you’re right. My heart still tells me to kick everytime I get a chance.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Let’s see the 2nd half vs 1st scores by the offense.

I know in my brain you’re right. My heart still tells me to kick everytime I get a chance.

You're welcome to look up the numbers yourself. I don't see how it's relevant to your argument. If you think teams are less likely to score on their first drive of the first half than their first drive of the second half, that will be true whether or not they get the ball immediately or whether they get it after the other team's first drive.

The good news for you is that deferring isn't a bad choice. It's just a choice that has no effect on your chances of winning.

 

[DogFace]

You're welcome to look up the numbers yourself. I don't see how it's relevant to your argument. If you think teams are less likely to score on their first drive of the first half than their first drive of the second half, that will be true whether or not they get the ball immediately or whether they get it after the other team's first drive.

The good news for you is that deferring isn't a bad choice. It's just a choice that has no effect on your chances of winning.

https://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/analysis/opening-kickoff-receive-or-defer/


“Receiving the ball to start the second half results, on average, in an extra point on the scoreboard and a 12% chance of stealing a possession.”

“Teams that receive the second half kickoff end up seeing even more of an advantage on the scoreboard, as they score 1.6 points more in the second half than their opponents.”

I’m guessing the reason they changed it is because some coaches wanted to elect to kick if they won the flip and not be at a disadvantage.

 

[JD_KaPow]

https://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/analysis/opening-kickoff-receive-or-defer/


“Receiving the ball to start the second half results, on average, in an extra point on the scoreboard and a 12% chance of stealing a possession.”

“Teams that receive the second half kickoff end up seeing even more of an advantage on the scoreboard, as they score 1.6 points more in the second half than their opponents.”

I’m guessing the reason they changed it is because some coaches wanted to elect to kick if they won the flip and not be at a disadvantage.

The “stealing a possession” thing makes no sense. To me, stealing a possession means getting an extra one your opponent doesn’t get. It’s the receiving team that has a chance for that: if you have the ball to begin and end the half, you got one more possession in that half than your opponent. Of course, the receiving team can get that in either half.

If you kick off to start the first half and have the ball at the end of the half, you didn’t steal a possession: you got the same number of possessions in that half as your opponent had. The article never explains why their version of stealing a possession is an advantage, it just assumes it is. Very odd.

 

[DogFace]

The “stealing a possession” thing makes no sense. To me, stealing a possession means getting an extra one your opponent doesn’t get. It’s the receiving team that has a chance for that: if you have the ball to begin and end the half, you got one more possession in that half than your opponent. Of course, the receiving team can get that in either half.

If you kick off to start the first half and have the ball at the end of the half, you didn’t steal a possession: you got the same number of possessions in that half as your opponent had. The article never explains why their version of stealing a possession is an advantage, it just assumes it is. Very odd.

There’s a reason many (dare I say most?) coaches believe in kicking first. It’s clear you’re not going to agree with either of us.
You have a different opinion.

I thought the more points scored might. There’s a lot of other info out there. I’m sure some agree with you (I didn’t see any in the search I did) , but like I said—Coaches likely lobbied to get the rule changed in 08 so they would not have a disadvantage if they won the flip.

There’s no question they changed the rule for a reason. And I think most pro and college coaches elect to kick.

Startng with the ball in the 2nd is the only chance to score in regulation two times in a row without changing possessipn. As the artcle says. This happens 12% of the time vs 0% for the receiving team.

 

[JD_KaPow]

There’s a reason many (dare I say most?) coaches believe in kicking first. It’s clear you’re not going to agree with either of us.
You have a different opinion.

I thought the more points scored might. There’s a lot of other info out there. I’m sure some agree with you (I didn’t see any in the search I did) , but like I said—Coaches likely lobbied to get the rule changed in 08 so they would not have a disadvantage if they won the flip.

There’s no question they changed the rule for a reason. And I think most pro and college coaches elect to kick.

Startng with the ball in the 2nd is the only chance to score in regulation two times in a row without changing possessipn. As the artcle says. This happens 12% of the time vs 0% for the receiving team.

Sure, but that's not stealing a possession. That's in fact the opposite: you didn't get an extra possession in the first half. I don't know why people are so hung up on the order of possessions. It doesn't give you any particular advantage to score on those two possessions vs. any other two possessions in the game.

I think it's much more valuable to receive the ball in a half and have the ball at the end of the half. That means that you got 5 possessions, say, vs. only 4 for your opponent. That's stealing a possession, and it's a real advantage. And it can only happen for the receiving team. Of course, it can happen in either half, so there's no inherent advantage to getting it in a particular half.

I suspect part of it is that teams that score on those back-to-back possessions probably win more than 50% of their games, simply because scoring is good and teams that do a lot of it tend to win. And so people see teams double up and win and think doubling up is a big part of the reason.

You also have to understand that for years after the option was made available, teams opted to receive first, always. Belichick decided to start deferring and everyone else followed suit, but I honestly don't believe there was any sound reasoning behind it: it was the cult of Belichick. Now there's this consensus that deferring is good. And we can dive into plays and points on particular drives, but the fact is that it doesn't give you a better chance to win the game, which is all that really matters.

 

[DogFace]

Sure, but that's not stealing a possession. That's in fact the opposite: you didn't get an extra possession in the first half. I don't know why people are so hung up on the order of possessions. It doesn't give you any particular advantage to score on those two possessions vs. any other two possessions in the game.

I think it's much more valuable to receive the ball in a half and have the ball at the end of the half. That means that you got 5 possessions, say, vs. only 4 for your opponent. That's stealing a possession, and it's a real advantage. And it can only happen for the receiving team. Of course, it can happen in either half, so there's no inherent advantage to getting it in a particular half.

I suspect part of it is that teams that score on those back-to-back possessions probably win more than 50% of their games, simply because scoring is good and teams that do a lot of it tend to win. And so people see teams double up and win and think doubling up is a big part of the reason.

You also have to understand that for years after the option was made available, teams opted to receive first, always. Belichick decided to start deferring and everyone else followed suit, but I honestly don't believe there was any sound reasoning behind it: it was the cult of Belichick. Now there's this consensus that deferring is good. And we can dive into plays and points on particular drives, but the fact is that it doesn't give you a better chance to win the game, which is all that really matters.

Maybe we’re both to vested in matter and need to take a step back.