So far this season, in every game we've played, we've kicked off to begin the game, and we've received the ball first in the second half. I'm not sure in how many of these games we've won the coin toss, but win or lose that opening toss, either we've deferred taking the ball until the second half or the other team has won the toss and elected to receive. Now, I'll say, in general, my philosophy would be if we win the toss... defer. Let your defense make a statement to begin the game. If you're behind by seven or less coming into the half, getting the ball first in the second half gives you a chance to either tie or go ahead in the game on that first drive. Even if you're behind by more than one score, if you score on that drive, you can bring it back to a one score difference, and make a game of it. If you're already ahead, you can get up by two or more scores, if you score a touchdown in that first drive, and you set the tone for the other team that they're going to have to abandon their gameplan and throw to catch up. So, for those reasons, I like the theory of deferring the coin toss if you win it. Occasionally, it doesn't make as much sense. It's so easy to use Monday Night as an example, but really, against any high-powered offense on the road... New England (healthy New England), New Orleans, Denver, Green Bay etc.... and sometimes just on the road in general to set the tone offensively - maybe at a Seattle, San Diego, Indianapolis - it might behoove your team to start the game with the ball. Get up a score. Maybe run your scripted plays that you have a good feeling will work. Have the other team have to climb uphill from the very beginning. Like I said, I prefer to defer, but sometimes wisdom is the better part of valor, so go ahead and start with them ball. With Miami this year, as stated, we've received the ball in the second half. In the ATL and New Orleans games, in the first half, the other team had opening drives for TDs (one a loooooong drive, and one in about two eye blinks). In the Cleveland and Indy games, the other team didn't score. At the half, the Dolphins have basically been in every game. In New Orleans, we were down by double-digits, but if we come out of the half with an opening score, it's a one possession ballgame, and you're right in the thick of things. Here's the results of our first drives from the second halves (from www.nfl.com): Cleveland 1. 8-B.Cundiff kicks 72 yards from CLE 35 to MIA -7. 34-M.Thigpen to MIA 17 for 24 yards (29-L.McFadden). 2. 1-10-MIA 17 (14:56) (Shotgun) 17-R.Tannehill pass incomplete deep right to 11-M.Wallace (23-J.Haden). 3. 2-10-MIA 17 (14:50) (Shotgun) 17-R.Tannehill sacked at MIA 16 for -1 yards (99-P.Kruger).WATCH HIGHLIGHT 4. 3-11-MIA 16 (14:11) (Shotgun) 17-R.Tannehill pass incomplete short left to 82-B.Hartline (92-D.Bryant). 5. 4-11-MIA 16 (14:04) (Punt formation) 2-B.Fields punts 62 yards to CLE 22, Center-92-J.Denney, out of bounds Colts 1. 1-P.McAfee kicks 73 yards from IND 35 to MIA -8. 34-M.Thigpen pushed ob at MIA 30 for 38 yards (27-J.Gordy). IND-39-S.Havili was injured during the play. His return is Probable. 2. 1-10-MIA 30 (14:55) (Shotgun) 17-R.Tannehill pass short right to 26-L.Miller to MIA 30 for no gain (93-E.Walden). 3. Timeout #1 by IND at 14:10. 4. 2-10-MIA 30 (14:10) (Shotgun) 17-R.Tannehill pass incomplete right. 5. 3-10-MIA 30 (14:03) (Shotgun) 17-R.Tannehill sacked at MIA 21 for -9 yards (50-J.Freeman). FUMBLES (50-J.Freeman), RECOVERED by IND-35-J.Lefeged at MIA 39. The play is recorded as a sack for 0 yards. The Replay Assistant challenged the fumble ruling, and the play was Upheld. Falcons 1. 5-M.Bosher kicks 66 yards from ATL 35 to MIA -1. 34-M.Thigpen to MIA 26 for 27 yards (28-T.DeCoud). 2. 1-10-MIA 26 (14:52) 26-L.Miller left end to MIA 28 for 2 yards (52-A.Dent). 3. 2-8-MIA 28 (14:19) 17-R.Tannehill sacked at MIA 19 for -9 yards (50-O.Umenyiora). FUMBLES (50-O.Umenyiora), RECOVERED by ATL-94-P.Jerry at MIA 12. 94-P.Jerry to MIA 12 for no gain (77-T.Clabo). Saints 1. 6-T.Morstead kicks 65 yards from NO 35 to end zone, Touchback. 2. 1-10-MIA 20 (15:00) 26-L.Miller left end to MIA 25 for 5 yards (92-J.Jenkins). 3. 2-5-MIA 25 (14:27) (Shotgun) 17-R.Tannehill pass incomplete short right to 11-M.Wallace. 4. 3-5-MIA 25 (14:23) (Shotgun) 17-R.Tannehill pass incomplete short left to 10-B.Gibson. 5. 4-5-MIA 25 (14:18) 2-B.Fields punts 57 yards to NO 18, Center-92-J.Denney. 43-D.Sproles to NO 36 for 18 yards (36-D.Jones). PENALTY on MIA, Player Out of Bounds on Punt, 5 yards, enforced at NO 36. So in summary, two three-and-outs and two three-or-less play drives ending with a fumble and the opponent recovering. Obviously, it's a small sample size, but it is 25% of a season. We'll only get twelve more opportunities, and some of those will be with us receiving in the first half. Not to put too fine a point on it, but... that's terrible (awful, horrible, detestable, "use your own adjectives"). You have to start asking, why defer? The odd thing is, through four games in total, but especially the first three, one could argue the Dolphins were the better second half team, and on average that's been true. However, what with these opening drives of the second half? We HAVE to do better to set a tone. Some teams script their first 20 or so plays of the game. Maybe Mike Sherman at halftime should be working on his first ten or so plays of the second half. Worse, maybe he is. Anyway, the trend is disturbing to me, both because against some of the better teams we've played, we get behind immediately, and then also because when we have a chance to set the tone in the second half, we've actually let the momentum swing the opposite direction. Not sure what the answer is except to call better plays and execute better. That, or quit deferring the kickoffs. But it's bitten us in every game, and in the game we lost, our first drive basically went and said we weren't making a game of this one. Anyone else noticing these nightmarish first drives of the second half, and does any one have thoughts on them, or what we could do better?
I usually don't have an issue deferring but I did in the Saints game, I knew right away it was a big mistake kicking off to them especially after I saw our offense have good success when we finally did get the ball, if we had received instead of deferring and started off with a long drive resulting in a score we might have changed the tone of the game instead of us being down 7-0 in a hostile environment.
yeah... it's a double edged sword. I believe we have won the coin toss in every game so far. I don't mind deferring because it gives us an extra possession in the second half, in theory. But if you're going three and out to start the second half, that's setting up the opposition with good field position (outside their 35 presumably).
Yep. And going forward, I think our coaches should be looking at the match-up, the other team's QB, how our offense is playing, etc. when making the decision to receive or defer. Games coming up like New England in Foxboro and maybe even San Diego at home, I might think about receiving first. Should we be getting to the playoffs (cart in front of horse, but oh well) and going on the road, I think those are also probably times and conditions to receive the opening kick instead of deferring.
Somes times you need to train your horse to get stronger so putting the cart in front of him will improve his strength, so playoffs we shall see.
It's a mixture of bad luck and bad execution that two of the drives after our opening drive of the second half have started on the Miami 39 and on the Miami 12. One ended in a FG (for Indy) and the Falcons scored their second half TD after recovering their fumble.
My theory and strong belief is you always defer to the second half. Much better strategy. If you had a bad half and need momentum change it allows that by giving you the ball. If you're in the lead it gives you the chance to score right off the bat and bury your opponent. The answer is not changing up that strategy. The solution is the coaching staff doing a better job of analyzing what a team is doing to us in the first half and taking advantage of the half to make the adjustments to come out and attack that effectively. It's a 12 minute time out that you have to be able to take advantage of.
In theory, I'm with you - just not as strong in my resolution of belief. But your reasons fall right in line with what I think. [I've already mentioned when I might think to do otherwise, so I won't go thru that again.] Totally agree that we should be taking advantage of halftime. It's odd that we aren't. We haven't even managed one first down in any of these opening drives in the second half. I think we actually have negative net yards on the four "drives", because our fumbles were on sacks. It's been atrocious. We only get the ball so many times in a game, and on four of our drives, the four coming out of our 12 minute time out, as you are correct to mention, we've been at our worst offensively. And I'm wondering why our staff hasn't been better at this part of the game. Overall, I think they've done really well, but four games out of four with a bad opening second half? That's definitely a place to improve in adjustments and our attack. It can't get worse.
We've been 10x better in the 2nd half vs. the 1st half in almost every way. So not sure I agree. I do agree that getting the ball to start the 2nd half is better and prefer it myself.
I don't think it really matters either way, but we should have taken the ball first aganst the Saints instead of deferring. The only way to quiet the crowd was to start on offense and string together a drive, even if you don't necessarily get a touchdown
I don't think it's a huge deal. I think the home team has a slight advantage if their defense is out there first. I think defenses can set the tone by riding a hyped up crowd, and crowds are typically louder on the first possession. Your offense wants it quiet, so let the fans get into the game by having your defense out there. So at home, defer; on the road, take the ball.
Let me put this another way and try to be more succinct, because it's not about deferring as much as it is what we've done when after deferring. Coming out of the half, on our four possessions in four games: Tannehill is 1-6, 0 yds, 0 first downs Tannehill has been sacked 3 times for -19 yards (-1, -9, -9), 2 fumbles, both recovered by the opponent Miller has 2 rushes for 7 yards, 0 first downs Fields has punted twice This has been our production after we've gone in at halftime, rested, and had twelve minutes to come up with a good plan of attack against the other team so we set the tone. Yes, in all games except the Saints, we've been better in the second half overall than the first. But not in these drives, and these drives were the reason we deferred to get the ball in the second half. And in them, we've had one positive play - a 5 yard run by Miller. The other 10 plays we've had - all zero or negative yards or turnovers. It just seems like you want your first drive in the first half to score, so you set the tone. That's why some coaches elect to receive. We defer. So we want to set the tone coming out of the half. And this is what we get? Small sample size or whatever, but four games out of four is a problem.
Alright, and I apologize if I'm making a mountain out of a molehill. However, when all four of the opening drives end up like our opening drives have ended up, you've just erased the benefit you noted. And that's after having 12 minutes to think about what you're doing (the other team gets 12 minutes, too, I realize that).
No, the benefit isn't erased at all. You're still ending up with more drives in the second half, at higher efficiency. If your first drive is going to be unsuccessful, you'd rather have 5 remaining drives, than 4 remaining drives.
Deferring is the only chance to get the ball to start the game and at the beginning of the 2nd half....it would take a bonehead error by the opponent following the deferral, but its possible. Heck, no one ever thought in an OT game (especially back when a simple FG won it) that a team would win the coin toss and elect to kickoff (but that happened)...so defer and hope the opponent errors and elects to kickoff to begin the game...then you also elect to receive at the beginning of the 2nd half...haha..it could happen.
All things being equal, unless the other teams are categorically wasting one of their drives each game (i.e. every first drive, every second drive, every third drive...), then there is no benefit that I can see. The other team gets an extra drive in the first half (maybe). We get an extra drive in the second half (maybe). But every first drive coming out of the second half so far has been three-plays-and-out or worse for our team. One specific drive - the first one coming out of the half. So if you punt on every one of those drives (or worse, fumble and give the other team the ball in your end), then you've lost any efficiency you might have gained. I get that you have a better chance of swinging and hitting five pitches rather than four. But if the first pitch is always thrown over your head and into the bleachers, you're basically swinging at the same four pitches the other guy is getting. However, in the first inning, he got five pitches, and you only got four. And to this point, the first pitch for the Dolphins hasn't been close to the plate.
The benefit is you get more drives, after the one you wasted. Absolutely not. You're not getting 3 pitches.
If you defer, lets say you get 6 possessions in the second half. Assuming the first will fail, you're left with 5 "efficient" possessions. If you don't defer, lets say you get 5 possessions in the second half. Assuming the first will fail, you're left with 4 "efficient" possessions. Make sense?
Can't you also choose which end of the field you want to defend? Assuming you aren't in a dome, that would be the most important factor in my decision. I'm not sure there is much of a difference in number of possessions between deferring and not. If there is that would be my main concern assuming the wind isn't a significant factor.
There inherently would be a difference in number of possessions. Getting the ball first is the only guaranteed possession of a half. The team getting the first possession is expected to get more possessions. Getting a side of the field could only pose advantageous, but its advantage is reliant upon possessing the ball. If you know you're going to have the ball for an extra possession, it would be advantageous to have the wind at your back for that half, for example. But since you cannot choose both possession and side of the field, and since the end of the field advantage is based on possession, choosing possession is inherently more important.
I think I see a little of what you're trying to say, but here's how I'm seeing it: 1st Half Team A gets ball first ("Efficient" possession) Team B gets ball ("Efficient" possession) Team A ("Efficient" possession) Team B ("Efficient" possession) Team A ("Efficient" possession) Team B ("Efficient" possession) Team A ("Efficient" possession) Team B ("Efficient" possession) Team A (depending on clock, may or may not get this possession - if so "Efficient') 2nd Half Team B ("Wasted" possession) Team A ("Efficient" possession) Team B ("Efficient" possession) Team A ("Efficient" possession) Team B ("Efficient" possession) Team A ("Efficient" possession) Team B ("Efficient" possession) Team A ("Efficient" possession) Team B (depending on clock, may or may not get this possession - if so "Efficient') Summary Team A = 8 definite "efficient" possessions in game with one optional depending on clock Team B = 7 definite "efficient" possessions in game with one optional depending on clock Is that incorrect?
Or to be devil's advocate it's a 12 minute timeout that an opposing DC is afforded to make adjustments.
Sure, but the point is that you're going to be wasting the first possession in the second half, whether you get the ball first or not.
Gotcha. Sorry, I'm a little dense, old, both, or worse. But I get what you're saying now regarding number of possessions in the second half. The inherent problem/question remains, though: why is the first possession of the second half continually wasted (after having all that time to think about it)? As Early, the bounty hunter in the last episode of Firefly continually asked, "Does that seem right to you?"
Right! But in a Perfect Dolphin-y World (or dare I say, a Phinsational World), our coaches are always better than theirs!
Who knows. Could just an aberration that will change as the sample size becomes larger. Could be the coaches just want to see if/how the defense has changed in the second half.
I disagree. That's too simplistic IMO. Winning the coin toss should be about having an opportunity to utilize strategy based on your opponent, their tendencies, the weather, wind, etc. It's not to defer 100% of the time, which has no valid correlation to success. Just as you argue you'd have an extra possession in the 2nd half, it could be argued that your offense would be afforded more possessions in the first half while it's clicking, before the opposing DC can make a strong adjustment at halftime. With a good defense at your back, seeing more first half points would put greater pressure on opposing offenses, thus creating greater opportunity for mistakes and forced errors. Plus, with the aid of a strong defense, you have a chance to win the ever-important field position battle by minimizing the opponent's second half kickoff drive, effectively getting the ball back on a shorter field rather than starting the second half at your own 20 and having to travel 45 yards to reach FG range against a defense that's had a chance to make adjustments. Therefore, your definition of 2nd half "efficiency" is skewed b/c field position affects efficiency. If opening second drives are seeing less efficiency, it might be wiser to opt for the potential of better field position than the potential for one more drive. At least better field position can be the gift that keeps on giving if the defense can hold a few consecutive drives and the offense can maintain a modicum of efficiency. Not to mention, if our opening drives are lacking efficiency, it could be argued that it's more advantageous to make the opposing offense travel 80 yards for a TD than give them the field position edge to start the second half.
Right, but that inherently means you believe the opposing coaching staff can make better adjustments. Certainly if you believe the opposing coaching staff will make better adjustments, then you should choose to receive. I'm working off the assumption that the coaches believe their adjustments will be better.
..... and you have a significantly greater chance of wasting the first possession of the second half if you start the drive on your own 20 following a kickoff rather than at the 35+ following a punt.
Isn't that what's happening so far? If the offense is experiencing some success in the first half, aren't you gonna want to stay with that game plan until the defense forces you out of it?
Isn't the team most likely to come out of halftime with a different or altered game plan the one that had less effectiveness in the first half?
That's not really playing devils advocate. I never insinuated that getting the ball in the second half means the other coaching staff stops coaching and planning at half time. That's a given. A good team will look for in game weaknesses. A player not playing up to par, an injury causing someone problems, witness of some tendencies not taken advantage in the first half and yes a focus on how a team has been playing you. A good staff will plan to attack that and also make a plan for what they may do to overcome that and how to address that on that first drive. Bottom linen is that deferring puts the ball in your hands and allows you the opportunity to immediately change game momentum or continue it in the half that is most important in a football game. How many times at the end of a half do you here announcers stating how favorable it is that a team behind gets the ball first in the second half or how the leading team really has a great chance to take control with that first drive? They state that because it's a no brainer.
Why do you assume that momentum can only be gained on offense? What about a strong defense gaining momentum by shutting down an opening second half drive and subsequently getting their offense the ball back with a shorter field than it would've had following a second half kickoff? It would seem to me that receiving the opening kickoff and going nowhere [like we've been doing] isn't favorable for maintaining or establishing momentum. Let me ask you, do you feel an offense is more prone to turnovers when it's playing from a deficit than playing with the lead or tied?
