Are there such things as dumb questions (defer or not this week)?

[RelocatedPatFan]

I know if we win the coin toss we always defer to get the ball to start the 2nd half. And, I think I can understand why (though I don't recall ever hearing a good answer to this from the media asking Bill).

However, with Dallas being a more of a defensive team and the fact they have had 2 weeks to prepare, would it make sense to have our offense start in the event we can score first and put more pressure on Romo to have a successful drive?

Granted, it's only 1 possession and i don't expect BB to deviate from his usual game plan (and if Dallas is a more defensive team does it make sense to challenge the defense first)?

 

[DarrylS]

IMO it is not a dumb question.. but BB seems to prefer having the first offensive possession of the second half...

If he took possession and opened with a no huddle drive, it would not surprise me.

If he did an onside kick to open up the game... would not surprise me.

BB likes to have sometype of edge on the opponent, so all options are open

 

[102 Pat]

I've always been a big fan of defering for the obvious reasons, if your losing, you can come out for the 2nd half and hopefully score. If your leading, you can hopefully get a score to start to think about putting the game out of reach. Depending on the score of course.

 

[goheels22002]

Getting the first possession of the second half makes plays like Welker's 73-yard catch and run against the Jets in week 5 possible. The coaches and players get to see how the defense is lining up in certain situations and talk about what might work to take advantage of a particular formation or matchup. You really don't have that level of in-the-moment analysis with the opening drive.

The risk of giving up the ball in the first quarter is the opportunity for the opponent to jump on top and then you're playing from behind. The nightmare was most painful two years ago against the Ravens in the playoffs when the Patriots found themselves down three scores before most of us had a chance to log on to the game thread.

Of course, having the ball first means the Patriots usually jump on the opposition and force them to play from behind. With Tony "Oops" Romo at the controls, taking the opening kickoff may be the optimal decision to put pressure on him to deliver the goods from the get-go.

 

[Gwedd]

I suspect that Coach will defer if New England wins the toss. It would be right interesting to make Romo run those first plays against this new D-Line, especially if both big boys are in the middle, though seeing Vince and Albert playing end might also be an interesting matchup for them 'boys too.

As to the question, no....... there is only only one dumb question: the one that isn't asked.

respects,

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Always defer, it's a huge tactical advantage IMO, especially if you can manage the clock so that you're 1st half possessions come out even.

I'd rather have the extra possession once your offense is settled into the game and know which adjustments are necessary (yes, even if your team has been as poor at adjusting as we've been in the past).

 

[ausbacker]

Given the increasing level of competency in defensive performances the past 2 weeks, I am comfortable with the deferring of possession. We all know barring something bizarre, the Patriots are going to score.

 

[tobias funke]

Putting together back-to-back drives to end the 1st half/start the 2nd can be a big turning point in a game, as we've seen from the Pats before.

 

[patchick]

The simplest answer to why you should defer is that the team receiving the ball to start the second hand wins something like 56% of the time. It's a significant tactical advantage, and just as with going for it on 4th down, BB is unusually willing to be guided by data over conventional wisdom.

IMO it takes an unusual circumstance to make receiving the opening kickoff the right move. An anticipated change in weather or field conditions that would favor the defense more as the game goes on is one example. I suppose if the opposing QB had a really dramatic and consistent history of falling apart when playing from behind that might swing the balance, but I don't think that describes today's matchup. (Romo falls apart with no apparent pattern. )

 

[ctpatsfan77]

The simplest answer to why you should defer is that the team receiving the ball to start the second hand wins something like 56% of the time. It's a significant tactical advantage, and just as with going for it on 4th down, BB is unusually willing to be guided by data over conventional wisdom.

IMO it takes an unusual circumstance to make receiving the opening kickoff the right move. An anticipated change in weather or field conditions that would favor the defense more as the game goes on is one example. I suppose if the opposing QB had a really dramatic and consistent history of falling apart when playing from behind that might swing the balance, but I don't think that describes today's matchup. (Romo falls apart with no apparent pattern. )

LOL at the last line. [BTW . . . what happened in the Wind Bowl? I know BB was concerned about having the wind in the Bills' faces in the fourth quarter.]

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

Having your D get the early interception certainly makes deferring to the 2nd half an easy decision.