Thread: Starting with the ball in the 2nd half... seems logical to me...

I've never understood why a team would want to start the game with the ball. Games are NEVER won in the 1st half and certainly not on the 1st drive. I know folks believe getting off to a quick start and playing with a lead is the reason, but why? In today's NFL so many games come down to the 4th quarter, and more often than not the last drive. So why a team wouldn't choose to ALWAYS get the ball to begin the 2nd half is beyond me.

If my memory is serving me correctly, almost every time Denver wins the coin toss at the beginning of the game they elect to receive. Why? Getting the ball to start the 2nd half serves two important options. The 1st is that if you have a lead at halftime you can control the ball immediately to begin the 2nd half, which is by far the most important one, and give your team the chance to score more points extending your lead. The 2nd option and the more important one is that if your team is behind you can immediately get the ball and start to work on your comeback, without having to create turnover or getting a 3 and out.

In sports and in a lot of things in life, it's not how you start it's how you finish. The way the game is designed there seems to be such a huge advantage in my opinon to start with the ball in the 2nd half. It really makes no logical sense to not want the ball to start the 2nd half. Another example would be baseball. I've always argued that of all major sports being the home team in baseball is the largest advantage for no other reason than the home team gets last at bat. In theory, even if the home team is down 100 runs, they still can win the game. Getting the last chance is huge, and it is also huge to start the 2nd half automatically getting the ball.

If last night was not a premium example of that logic, nothing ever will be. The whole comeback relied on getting the ball immediately and setting the tempo with a TD. The confidence your team can draw from that helps getting the proverbial snowball rolling down hill. Plus, you've made the score closer... screw the confidence and tempo!

Thank goodness we lost the toss and San Diego went with ass-backward logic and took the ball to begin the game!

I dont buy much stock into who gets the ball what half. There are so many variables throughout a game it really doesnt matter.

I think conventional wisdom says that if you receive to start the game you can sometimes gain one more offensive possession than the other team...

But I am a fan of deferring to the 2nd half as well, especially with this team.

I remember when shanahan's scripted opening drive would almost always lead to points, and thus always give us a lead right off the bat. That lead, can shape the game from that point forward as the other team "pushes" to keep point-to-point.

Last year I remember us deferring more. The reason we ask for the ball first this year is so we can set up a lead with Manning to give our pass rush more flexibility. Unlike last year, the coaching staff believes in the offense but we're still plagued by our inability to play a strong 2nd quarter.

Originally Posted by UnderArmour

Last year I remember us deferring more. The reason we ask for the ball first this year is so we can set up a lead with Manning to give our pass rush more flexibility. Unlike last year, the coaching staff believes in the offense but we're still plagued by our inability to play a strong 2nd quarter.

Yeah.. logically, I still think you want to put the ball INTO Manning's hands as much as you can. You win the flip, you put the ball into Manning's hands.

If we could actually score on the first drive, I would be all for receiving first.

However, we don't even score in the first half regularly, much less on the first drive.

If I were a coach, even with PFM and an elite offense that I could rely on to score on the first drive, I would defer to the second half. To me it allows you more control of the flow of the game. If you find yourself in a hole, you have a shot to start digging out like last night.

Especially, if you have a potent offense, you can often play the clock to end the 1st half hopefully either scoring, or running out the clock, and then take the ball to start the 2nd half hopefully scoring.

Just for fun I looked back at our best complete game - against the raydaz. http://espn.go.com/nfl/playbyplay?gameId=320930007

Looks like they won the toss, deferred, and we scored first and never looked back.

I bet the oposing team never does that again this year.

Originally Posted by Buff

I think conventional wisdom says that if you receive to start the game you can sometimes gain one more offensive possession than the other team...

But I am a fan of deferring to the 2nd half as well, especially with this team.

I've heard that before too but it's poppycok. You may get one more possession in the first half but not the second half. I heard DMac going off on this one day and I wanted to choke him through the radio.

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

I remember when shanahan's scripted opening drive would almost always lead to points, and thus always give us a lead right off the bat. That lead, can shape the game from that point forward as the other team "pushes" to keep point-to-point.

Look at what Stinky use to say about the SB run years.

He would say that they EXPECTED to score on their first 3 drives and take the will out of any team.

Originally Posted by Northman

Look at what Stinky use to say about the SB run years.

He would say that they EXPECTED to score on their first 3 drives and take the will out of any team.

Thats how I see it. I know that we haven't been the scoring team YET with Manning and this offense. But we'll get that mixture figured out. I'm really hoping we stop with the conservative "run for a yard" on 2 out of the first 3 plays on the fist couple of drives and get things rolling quickly with our downfield passing, and let the pass set up the run.

I just believe that Manning can take advantage of a defensive coverage mistake on any snap, and thus, I just want to put the ball into HIS hands as quickly as possible. Hard for me not to see things that way.

They did a stat analysis a few years ago and found that starting the second half with the ball was more helpful than starting the game with it, so you'll see most teams defer now. I wish I could find the article...

~G

I really think it comes down to whether you are a strong defensive team or offensive team. Obviously we are much more of the latter. It also depends on your opponent. Next game against the Saints would be a good time to receive and try to go up early on an offensive team like NO. It comes down to what the situation demands. That is where the benefit lies.

Originally Posted by G_Money

They did a stat analysis a few years ago and found that starting the second half with the ball was more helpful than starting the game with it, so you'll see most teams defer now. I wish I could find the article...

~G

I don't know how any stat analysis could even truthfully determine that. There are just sooo many factors that determine a game, that I don't know how we could say "these teams started with the ball and lost, while these teams didn't and won...thus...." Just seems like a number that wouldn't have much "fact" behind the stat, to m.

Last report I read said something like 59% of the teams that took the ball first went on to win and 55% of the teams that deferred went on to win. Again...it all depends on the team and the opponent that week.

With our defense and our schedule...I would probably take the ball first every week as well