Trent and Jauron

[Adam]

So that leaves ONE reason not to defer: the weather's nice.

 

But since you included The Bills/their opponents having good/bad defenses/offenses, you pretty much admitted you'd defer in any scenario, regardless of the weather.

 

Too cute!

No so. In the early 1990's I probably would have wanted the ball first- if you have a dominant offense, you want to set the tone with that.

 

If both teams are mediocre, as was the case with the Monday night game- or the Miami game, I would defer. My reasoning for this is that early in the game, there is a feeling out process. Let the other team have the ball for that- or let them choose and endzone, which is the equivalent of a turnover (see our game vs the Jets in 1995, when Parcells did this).

 

If the weather is excessively bad, I think I would probably defer, based on the fact that it will bog down the offenses, but I would have to consider who I was playing, particularly if they had a strong running game.

[Ramius]

I never said it killed them. You have serious reading comprehension problems.

 

You said it lead to their inability tp put miami away, or it gave miami a mental edge. Good teams get their D out there first, stop the opposition, and take over from there. Not to mention that fact that YOU HAVE THE CHANCE FOR AN EXTRA POSSESSION IN THE SECOND HALF when you defer.

 

So tell me, would miami have been quaking if we took the opening kickoff, drove all the way down the field (like we did on our 1st drive), and then settled for 3, like we did on our first drive? the 3-0 deficit would have been so demoralizing for miami that we would have won?

 

Your asinine lahjik lacks one simple thing. Common sense. That game was lost in quarter #4, with our final 5 possessions results in 4 TOs and a safety. It had nothing to do with deferring. Tell the damn defense to stop a team.

[The Big Cat]

No so. In the early 1990's I probably would have wanted the ball first- if you have a dominant offense, you want to set the tone with that.

 

If both teams are mediocre, as was the case with the Monday night game- or the Miami game, I would defer. My reasoning for this is that early in the game, there is a feeling out process. Let the other team have the ball for that- or let them choose and endzone, which is the equivalent of a turnover (see our game vs the Jets in 1995, when Parcells did this).

 

If the weather is excessively bad, I think I would probably defer, based on the fact that it will bog down the offenses, but I would have to consider who I was playing, particularly if they had a strong running game.

 

Okay, but the bottom line is, you can always make a justification for deferring. It's the most rational thing to do, in ANY circumstance, from what I'm reading here.

[1billsfan]

You said it lead to their inability tp put miami away, or it gave miami a mental edge. Good teams get their D out there first, stop the opposition, and take over from there. Not to mention that fact that YOU HAVE THE CHANCE FOR AN EXTRA POSSESSION IN THE SECOND HALF when you defer.

 

So tell me, would miami have been quaking if we took the opening kickoff, drove all the way down the field (like we did on our 1st drive), and then settled for 3, like we did on our first drive? the 3-0 deficit would have been so demoralizing for miami that we would have won?

 

Your asinine lahjik lacks one simple thing. Common sense. That game was lost in quarter #4, with our final 5 possessions results in 4 TOs and a safety. It had nothing to do with deferring. Tell the damn defense to stop a team.

 

I said that it was a decision which was one that the Bills did not recover from since yesterday's game. It was a bad decision from a tactical and a psychological standpoint.

 

They were 5-1 at the time. The day was nice and sunny. Jauron's decision sent a message to his players that they were not going to attack the Dolphins and try to squash them early, but they were instead going to be in a dog fight the whole way through. It was a dumb decision. Know one knows what the Bills would have done on that first possession, but at least he'd have sent a message that we are going to try and take our divisional rivals out early. If they did not so be it, but at least he would have shown himself to be on the right and logical thinking side of coaching. Players respect that their coach trusts them to fire out with a 7-0 lead.

 

Instead the Dolphins got the 7 points and the Bills never looked like that confident 5-1 team the rest of the way. Regardless of even when the were leading. There was just a bad vibe about that entire game. Just like the bad vibe was sent when he decided that a 47 yard field goal was close enough with over a minute to go, when he slammed Marshawn up the gut and against a wall for 3 straight plays. As an NFL head coach he makes jackass decisions, which is the reason why his team always gets beat by any and every good team that comes along.

 

Did you know that by deferring you're giving the opposing team's defensive coordinator a whole first halves worth of film to study from? One of the advantages of getting the ball first is that you can surprise that team with specific plays gameplanned for maximum impact. They don't know what you're going to do. What, are you going to wait until the second half to break out your surprise plays and packages? That's dumb, the decision to defer in Miami was dumb, Dick Jauron is a dumb head coach.