No, they should utilize the information they get from the first half. It would be silly not to utilize that information. If the offense has success in the first half, they should try and increase the level of success in the second half. The odds of where you receive the ball on your first possession. There is no difference in expected field position in the second half than the first half. Its not about coming out with a different game plan. Its about coming out with the most effective game plan possible. Certainly you are able to formulate a better game plan after playing your opponent for a half than you would be before playing that opponent at all.
I believe when your in a very hostile environment you defer because you don't want your offense dealing with the crowd at its Apex on the first drive..
I was actually thinking of starting a thread on this. It has become a pet peeve of mine. Take the ball, score first, shut up the road crowd, psych up the home crowd.
WADR it doesn't seem like you've actually answered my questions. To me it sounds like a politician's way of making it sound good but not actually answering what's been addressed.
Let me ask you a question Todd, you are a fan of a team that has a elite home field advantage, if your a coach coming into Death Valley, do you want your offense out there first knowing what you know?
Here is the sound numbers based reason why you ALWAYS defer: NFL games are faster in the first half. Namely because in a close game, the clock is stopped more often in the second half. Because more is invested in the second half, due to adjustments being made...there are more possessions in the second half than in the first. You defer to the second half..to ensure your best chance at having the most second half possessions, and thus having the most planned and adjusted possessions.
Not necessarily. I recall a few opposing QB's say Death Valley's environment was so intense they puked right before kickoff, so if I were coming into Clemson I might want to defer to let the energy of "the hill entrance" settle down a bit-- including the nerves of my offensive players, the adrenaline of Clemson's defensive players, and the noise of the crowd that would be silenced a good bit if Clemson's offense has to start first. If Clemson's defense starts first, there's no interruption of energy, noise, and adrenaline.
Right, thats why if your the opposing team you should defer, the crowd is most hyped on the first drive if you have an elite home field advantage, so why put your offense into that situation?
Anybody that says "always defer" have any stats to show it gives you a better chance to win?? Any info that says scoring in the purported "extra 2nd half possession", gives you a better chance at winning than scoring in an "extra first half possession"? How many time have the Fins scored the last two years with the 2nd half kickoff after deferring?
There's no evidential stat to support it. At first glance it would seem as though choosing to defer has a better win percentage, but it's skewed b/c the Patriots always defer; meanwhile the terrible Jags always receive. If you omit those two teams, the win percentage is about equal. Roughly a third of the NFL seems set in their ways [either always deferring or always accepting], and the remaining lot seem to mix it up based on a plethora of variables. Here's a tidbit from an interesting SI article last December. In this Denver-San Diego instance, it worked out..... but there are also instances of it backfiring, where the team that fell behind in the first half either turned it over or had a 3 & out to start the second half and found themselves in an even greater hole, especially w/o the luxury of a Peyton Manning behind them. Just as the potential to have one more possession in the second half has its advantages, so does scoring first and putting pressure on the opposing offense to keep up, which puts them at a higher risk for creating a mistake.
What's significantly more important is stealing extra possessions [via turnover, fake punts, etc]. Sean Payton understands well the importance of gaining extra possessions; after all he onsided against the Colts in the SB during the second half kickoff. If there was a stat that remotely supported an across-the-board advantage in deferring in hopes of gaining an extra second half possession, then I'm sure Sean Payton would've been deferring every opportunity he gets, however he almost always chooses to receive and get his offense on the field in hopes of scoring first and putting greater pressure on the opponent to keep up. So it's a mixed bag b/c opting for the potential of an extra 2nd half possession isn't without its disadvantages.
I totally agree, huge mistake giving the Saints the ball when we won the toss. I think in certain stadiums against certain players you need your offense to come out and control the temp of the game.
My gut says the team that score first wins over 50% of the time. So why not take the first chance to be that team??
My cousin, who won a full paid scholarship to EKU and played with (even owned him many times which garnered his respect) Yeremiah Bell ( ive met him and have a signed ball yes be jealous ) used to say that every football game is decided on how a team starts in the second half. Me? I dont like deferring away. But hey, i didnt win no scholarship. P.s. Yeremiah's nickname in college was My-My. I like to spell it Miah-Miah.
