Enough with the "deferring" criticism

[Bill from NYC]

What if you have a dominant return game and you are playing at home and your defense has shown that they are vulnerable early in games? A big return or God forbid one taken all the way will fire up the fans in a huge way. Sorry Badol...for this team (IMO) it is not correct to defer at home. You can sway me when we're on the road, but with this team again, I'm still leaning towards give me the damn ball.

 

Both you and Badol make good cases for your points of view.

 

For years, I have always wanted the Bills to lose the toss and get the ball in the 2nd half. My reason? They aren't a good team, so I wanted them to get the ball later in the game when they would seemingly always need to catch up and perhaps pull out a win.

What a mess.

[SwampD]

Nobody has mentioned the wind. If it is a home game, then I want them to do whatever it takes to have the wind at our backs in the fourth quarter. Marv made sure of this every game and it is a much bigger factor than momentum swings on the first drive. If we have the wind in the fourth quarter against the Browns, we win.

[Beerball]

Nobody has mentioned the wind. If it is a home game, then I want them to do whatever it takes to have the wind at our backs in the fourth quarter. Marv made sure of this every game and it is a much bigger factor than momentum swings on the first drive. If we have the wind in the fourth quarter against the Browns, we win.

you've taken the sail out of my wind

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

Nobody has mentioned the wind. If it is a home game, then I want them to do whatever it takes to have the wind at our backs in the fourth quarter. Marv made sure of this every game and it is a much bigger factor than momentum swings on the first drive. If we have the wind in the fourth quarter against the Browns, we win.

 

Great point. At home, always try to pick the wind. With the new deferral system, I'm not sure how that works though.

 

Also, on the deferral question, I would take the ball first at home, and defer on the road. One announcer made the good point that at the beginning of the second half, the crowd is always still shuffling around, in the bathroom, concessions, etc. It's the best time for a visiting team to counteract any home field disadvantage.

[1billsfan]

I'm not any happier with Jauron than anyone is, but deferring the kickoff is absolutely the right play for this and most every team.

 

Here is why:

 

Because posession is not alternated from the end of one half to the beginning of the next, by deferring it is then possible to have two consecutive posessions by having the ball last in the first half and first in the second half. Getting the opportunity to score twice without the opponents offense seeing the field is a huge momentum swing, equivalent to scoring and then scoring again off of a turnover. Conversely, by deferring you guarantee that you WON'T GIVE UP two consecutive scores without somehow making a mistake and turning the ball over.

 

In essence, deferring gives you the opportunity to blow a game open or prevent another team from blowing it open against you.

 

Now, if you have a DOMINANT offense, then maybe you play it differently. Get the lead and try to take your opponent out of their game. But short of that, you defer.

 

In addition, if you are concerned about crowd noise, the beginning of the second half is the quietest time of most any competitive game. If you are home, you want their offense off the field at that point. If you are on the road, you want your offense out there.

 

When you have a defense that is very prone to give up early scores it is foolish to give the opposing team the first opportunity to score. Football games are much more condensed then they used to be. This is because they run the clock in out of bounds plays after the ball is reset. So the odds of winning the game are far better when you're the first team that scores rather than when you're the team that getting the first possession in the second half. I don't have stats but I guarantee you the odds or better between the two (even if your name isn't the Buffalo Bills).

 

The thing that can't be measured is the lack of confidence you not so obviously are showing in your offense. If I was head coach I'd have a score first, take no prisoners approach. I'm not waiting, give me the damn ball and try to stop me. Jauron coaches like a timid turtle hiding in his shell not wanting to stick his neck out and take a stand. He can't even throw a challenge flag with authority.

[MRW]

Why is this discussion being made in a vacuum, as though Jauron is the only coach deciding to defer all the time? Week after week I watch games and without an exception that I can think of, the winning team defers. Like I said, it's just an inane criticism.

 

If you want to criticize Jauron, how about focusing on the things that competent coaches do that he doesn't?

[dave mcbride]

Since 1950, teams that scored first with a TD have won 63% of the time. In 2006 -- a typical year -- the team that scored first (FG or TD) won 64% of the time. I like those odds. Sometimes it's best not to overthink things and simply focus on grabbing the earliest opportunity to take the lead.

[AJ1]

Since 1950, teams that scored first with a TD have won 63% of the time. In 2006 -- a typical year -- the team that scored first (FG or TD) won 64% of the time. I like those odds. Sometimes it's best not to overthink things and simply focus on grabbing the earliest opportunity to take the lead.

 

Because it's in vogue with the current crop of fools does not make it right or an intelligent decision.

[1billsfan]

Since 1950, teams that scored first with a TD have won 63% of the time. In 2006 -- a typical year -- the team that scored first (FG or TD) won 64% of the time. I like those odds. Sometimes it's best not to overthink things and simply focus on grabbing the earliest opportunity to take the lead.

 

 

Exactly, especially when you have one of the most feared kick return teams in the league.

 

Overthinking? So THAT'S what Dick Jauron is doing on the sidelines while wearing that lonely expressionless stare.

[Peter]

I'm not any happier with Jauron than anyone is, but deferring the kickoff is absolutely the right play for this and most every team.

 

Here is why:

 

Because posession is not alternated from the end of one half to the beginning of the next, by deferring it is then possible to have two consecutive posessions by having the ball last in the first half and first in the second half. Getting the opportunity to score twice without the opponents offense seeing the field is a huge momentum swing, equivalent to scoring and then scoring again off of a turnover. Conversely, by deferring you guarantee that you WON'T GIVE UP two consecutive scores without somehow making a mistake and turning the ball over.

 

In essence, deferring gives you the opportunity to blow a game open or prevent another team from blowing it open against you.

 

Now, if you have a DOMINANT offense, then maybe you play it differently. Get the lead and try to take your opponent out of their game. But short of that, you defer.

 

In addition, if you are concerned about crowd noise, the beginning of the second half is the quietest time of most any competitive game. If you are home, you want their offense off the field at that point. If you are on the road, you want your offense out there.

 

Good points. Yet, our defense has either allowed the opposing offense to score or flip the field in recent games. Deferring is a great strategy if you can get a three and out. It just has not worked out that way.

[keepthefaith]

I'm not any happier with Jauron than anyone is, but deferring the kickoff is absolutely the right play for this and most every team.

 

Here is why:

 

Because posession is not alternated from the end of one half to the beginning of the next, by deferring it is then possible to have two consecutive posessions by having the ball last in the first half and first in the second half. Getting the opportunity to score twice without the opponents offense seeing the field is a huge momentum swing, equivalent to scoring and then scoring again off of a turnover. Conversely, by deferring you guarantee that you WON'T GIVE UP two consecutive scores without somehow making a mistake and turning the ball over.

 

In essence, deferring gives you the opportunity to blow a game open or prevent another team from blowing it open against you.

 

Now, if you have a DOMINANT offense, then maybe you play it differently. Get the lead and try to take your opponent out of their game. But short of that, you defer.

 

In addition, if you are concerned about crowd noise, the beginning of the second half is the quietest time of most any competitive game. If you are home, you want their offense off the field at that point. If you are on the road, you want your offense out there.

 

Screw it. deferring is just more evidence of Jauron playing cautious. You have to score to win in the NFL. Stats show that the team that scores first wins more often. Why the fukk would you ever defer? You game plan all week to score. Take the ball and get going. You have a better chance of getting an extra possession in the first half if you take the ball at the beginning of the game which gives you a better chance to have the lead or a larger lead at halftime which puts pressure on the opposition.

 

Jauron stated weeks ago that weather is a factor in the decision. He's full of shyt. Weather was pretty good indoors last week.

 

Fire this idiot.

[Lori]

Some stats to add to the discussion:

 

The Dolphins have won the toss eight times, deferring on seven of those. The one time they took the ball? Three-and-out. On the seven times they won and kicked off, they gave up three FGs, forced two turnovers and two punts.

 

Patriots: Won six times, kicked off five. Gave up one FG, one missed FG, forced one turnover and two punts. The only time they took the ball? Lost it on a fumble.

 

Giants: Won six times, took the ball every time. Two TDs, one INT, three punts.

 

Looking at the 39 games those three teams have played (and subtracting 2 for the duplication caused by the two MIA-NE games), overall, the team winning the toss and choosing to receive scored on five of 17 opening possessions, turned the ball over on three, and punted on nine (including six three-and-outs). That leaves 20 games with the winner deferring; those defenses allowed seven scores (two TDs, five FGs), forced nine punts and five turnovers (including the missed FG).

 

If anyone has some time to kill, it would be interesting to find out whether or not that percentage -- over twice as many unsuccessful possessions as scores for the team winning the toss and taking the ball, and exactly twice as many stops as scores for teams that deferred -- holds up leaguewide.

[stuckincincy]

Some stats to add to the discussion:

 

The Dolphins have won the toss eight times, deferring on seven of those. The one time they took the ball? Three-and-out. On the seven times they won and kicked off, they gave up three FGs, forced two turnovers and two punts.

 

Patriots: Won six times, kicked off five. Gave up one FG, one missed FG, forced one turnover and two punts. The only time they took the ball? Lost it on a fumble.

 

Giants: Won six times, took the ball every time. Two TDs, one INT, three punts.

 

Looking at the 39 games those three teams have played (and subtracting 2 for the duplication caused by the two MIA-NE games), overall, the team winning the toss and choosing to receive scored on five of 17 opening possessions, turned the ball over on three, and punted on nine (including six three-and-outs). That leaves 20 games with the winner deferring; those defenses allowed seven scores (two TDs, five FGs), forced nine punts and five turnovers (including the missed FG).

 

If anyone has some time to kill, it would be interesting to find out whether or not that percentage -- over twice as many unsuccessful possessions as scores for the team winning the toss and taking the ball, and exactly twice as many stops as scores for teams that deferred -- holds up league wide.

 

I would prefer to parse Tolstoy's War and Peace than to figure out if deferring or not is best.

[Lori]

I would prefer to parse Tolstoy's War and Peace than to figure out if deferring or not is best.

That's why I made a suggestion, instead of offering to do it myself. Three teams were enough for me ...

[Adam]

In a game of momentum, if your offense scores on the first drive it will often fire up our defense, yes.

Its a safe bet we won't score on the first possession

[ieatcrayonz]

Some stats to add to the discussion:

 

The Dolphins have won the toss eight times, deferring on seven of those. The one time they took the ball? Three-and-out. On the seven times they won and kicked off, they gave up three FGs, forced two turnovers and two punts.

 

Patriots: Won six times, kicked off five. Gave up one FG, one missed FG, forced one turnover and two punts. The only time they took the ball? Lost it on a fumble.

 

Giants: Won six times, took the ball every time. Two TDs, one INT, three punts.

 

Looking at the 39 games those three teams have played (and subtracting 2 for the duplication caused by the two MIA-NE games), overall, the team winning the toss and choosing to receive scored on five of 17 opening possessions, turned the ball over on three, and punted on nine (including six three-and-outs). That leaves 20 games with the winner deferring; those defenses allowed seven scores (two TDs, five FGs), forced nine punts and five turnovers (including the missed FG).

 

If anyone has some time to kill, it would be interesting to find out whether or not that percentage -- over twice as many unsuccessful possessions as scores for the team winning the toss and taking the ball, and exactly twice as many stops as scores for teams that deferred -- holds up leaguewide.

 

Clearly all three of these teams are smarter than Jauron. Bellichick Sparano, and Parcells are geniuses but all a bit overweight, so should defer. Coughlin won last year's Super Bowl and is thin so obviously he should receive. Jauron is just a big idiot that Jerry Sullivan has exposed but he is also thin, so obviously his decisions to defer are wrong.

[BADOLBILZ]

Since 1950, teams that scored first with a TD have won 63% of the time. In 2006 -- a typical year -- the team that scored first (FG or TD) won 64% of the time. I like those odds. Sometimes it's best not to overthink things and simply focus on grabbing the earliest opportunity to take the lead.

 

I knowed that. But does getting the ball first actually increase the likelihood of scoring first? I tend to think that stat is as even as the coin flip which decides it. The reason being that it is irrespective of the quality of the team. Your stat basically tells us that the best team scores first about 2/3 of the time, which is not surprising at all.

[dave mcbride]

I knowed that. But does getting the ball first actually increase the likelihood of scoring first? I tend to think that stat is as even as the coin flip which decides it. The reason being that it is irrespective of the quality of the team. Your stat basically tells us that the best team scores first about 2/3 of the time, which is not surprising at all.

You may be right -- it's hard to tell. I will say, though, that the Bills are a different team when they get down early (aside from the KC game) -- they seem more desperate and less confident. They've allowed a lot of opening drive scores this year: KC, SF, first Miami game, NE, AZ, and a couple of others I'm forgetting.

 

A larger issue is that Jauron copies trends (how about the Bills brutal and totally ineffective wildcat formation?), and despite the fact that his team gives up a lot of opening drive TDs and the fact that he has a terrific KO returner, he puts himself in a position to fall behind early because conventional wisdom dictates that it's wise to defer. With regard to other teams, I get it, but he's gotta know his own team.

 

p.s. The Jets and Raiders both received first and scored opening drive FGs.

 

p.p.s. In the Browns game, the Browns deferred, and McKelvin returned it to near midfield -- excellent position.

[BADOLBILZ]

With regard to other teams, I get it, but he's gotta know his own team.

 

p.s. The Jets and Raiders both received first and scored opening drive FGs.

 

p.p.s. In the Browns game, the Browns deferred, and McKelvin returned it to near midfield -- excellent position.

 

Yeah, I think the bigger issue is why do the Bills give up a score on the opponents first drive so often? My take is that the Bills defense too often presents the opposing offense with exactly what they expect to see. Fewell observes how the opponent wants to attack his defense on that first drive, and then reacts in subsequent posessions. I hate that. I want my defensive coordinator to know what the opponent is trying to do and attack from snap one. However, there is no reason to think that receiving the ball first is going to prevent the opponent from scoring on THEIR first drive. See that long, methodical, well schemed drive by SF after the Bills squandered good field position after receiving that opening kickoff.

[NavarreFL_Bills_Fan]

Bottom line is they still have to execute....recieving the ball to start the game and going 3 and out has the same negative consequences as doing it after the half