love the shoe

I would take the ball first and not defer

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, GusFring said:

Seems like something Pagano would do. I can't think of a circumstance where I wouldn't want to start the 3rd with the ball.

:facepalm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of you seem to think the Colts will win the toss.

Over thinking this is a hazard to your sanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Smonroe said:

 

That works when you pick one value and use it as the average. Pick another value, say 2 minutes, and the results swing the other way.  (You’re talking to a guy who knows statistics and computer modeling, so I’m enjoying this nerdy discussion).

 

The right way to make the determination is to Monte Carlo the range.  If the average range of time for a drive is two to three minutes, then the results even out over the long run.  

 

But let’s say you’re correct with your number and that’s the known standard.   Then, wouldn’t every coach want to have the ball on the LAST drive of the game?

I didnt pick it it's an average I got from an analytics website. And the rationale they gave is, last drive is not a double dip situation. Also, teams are usually running out the clock by then and have better control over their drives. Good point though. I wondered the same thing. I'm not saying it is foolproof, just saying there is evidence to back up the claim it helps you double dip. That's all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

If I win the toss, I would defer. I love the feeling of getting the ball to start the 2nd Half and putting pressure on the opposing teams Offense to score to start the game.

It seems weird that to defer is a fairly new thing that all teams do.   I remember, a long time ago, when I played Super Tecmo Bowl, I would always defer given the chance.   It seemed logical to me. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, love the shoe said:

what do you all think, take the ball score 7 and take about 8 min doing it ?????  Make them play from behind , Thoughts ?????

I think that's very interesting but my gut says Coach will stick to what we've done all year and what's gotten us here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, dodsworth said:

I remember the days of Manning electing to receive,only to go

3 and out.

I don't think it was Mannings decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DrLuck said:

I didnt pick it it's an average I got from an analytics website. And the rationale they gave is, last drive is not a double dip situation. Also, teams are usually running out the clock by then and have better control over their drives. Good point though. I wondered the same thing. I'm not saying it is foolproof, just saying there is evidence to back up the claim it helps you double dip. That's all.

 

As @Superman pointed out, there wasn't any real data on the ESPN study that showed there was no real advantage to deferring.  But they did do some research so it can't be dismissed.  There is no mathematical advantage, that was my original point.

 

I think the real advantage, if there is one, is that the D is fresh as it's ever going to be on the opening drive.  And that the offense really hasn't worked out where they have match up advantages.  Maybe a tiny advantage but you have to take every one you can get!

 

(Just wanted to add, in our game Houston deferred and we had the ball at the end of the first half.  It's a crapshoot.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

(Just wanted to add, in our game Houston deferred and we had the ball at the end of the first half.  It's a crapshoot.)

 

It's not a crap shoot. We dominated the ball in the first half, and the Texans completely botched the end of their last drive. They should have converted that 4th and 1, and then run another two or three plays, leaving us with way less than a minute on that final possession in the second quarter. They misplayed their hand, IMO.

 

Overall, it's not a guarantee. It's simply an opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, DerekDiggler said:

 

Well 75% of the games this past weekend agree with me.   I got to that 75% by using math.  

 

The odds of this happening lean to what I am saying.   Odds are not guesses they are figured on probability which is likelihood something will happen which is mathematics 

 

 

 

 

The 75% number is using descriptive statistics.  Trying to use those number as inferential statistics doesn't work.  The sample size is too small.  For a reasonable sample size the magic number is about 1000, give or take.  There is a formula you can use to determine the sample size for any given population.  It will also take into account the confidence level and margin of error.

 

So the results from the playoff games this weekend aren't a valid representation.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

It's not a crap shoot. We dominated the ball in the first half, and the Texans completely botched the end of their last drive. They should have converted that 4th and 1, and then run another two or three plays, leaving us with way less than a minute on that final possession in the second quarter. They misplayed their hand, IMO.

 

Overall, it's not a guarantee. It's simply an opportunity.

 

You're moving away from the original point - that it's mathematically proven that deferring the opening kickoff gives you more of a chance to have the ball at the end of the half.

 

That is a crapshoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Smonroe said:

 

Sorry, but that makes no sense.  By that logic, each team gets the ball the exact same amount.  If you defer, you’re already down one possession in the first half, up one in the second.  No doubt, you’re HOPING for that back to back, but there’s no ‘math’ involved.  

 

ESPN found no statistical advantage to taking the ball to open the second half rather than the first, but perhaps coaches are aiming at a psychological advantage. An extra possession is, on paper, more valuable in the second half than the first. Maybe coaches are aiming for the double whammy of scoring to close the first half and to open the second. It’s probably all of the above.

Or it could be a simpler reason: they’re doing it because everyone else is. Writes ESPN:

There also could be a herd mentality. If a great coach such as Belichick is going to defer all the time, why go the opposite direction?

 

http://footballscoop.com/news/number-nfl-coaches-deferring-kickoff-skyrocketed-past-decade/

 

 

Yep - the Bill Belichick effect.  And the reason it worked is because they are (have been) really good.  A really good team knows how to manage the clock and maximize their effort.

 

So lots of other teams started doing it and they still lose games.  Not because they deferred to the second half but because they aren't that good.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

You're moving away from the original point - that it's mathematically proven that deferring the opening kickoff gives you more of a chance to have the ball at the end of the half.

 

That is a crapshoot.

 

I'm not moving away from that; I never asserted that.

 

My intention is to specify where the advantage might be found. Again, not a guarantee of an advantage, but an opportunity for one, depending on how the first half is played.

 

And that's not a crap shoot. It's something the deferring team can influence with the way they manage the clock.

 

On the other hand, you're stating that there is no advantage to deferring, and that's not true either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think the Chiefs should get the ball at the beginning of both halves just to make the game more competitive.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I'm not moving away from that; I never asserted that.

 

My intention is to specify where the advantage might be found. Again, not a guarantee of an advantage, but an opportunity for one, depending on how the first half is played.

 

And that's not a crap shoot. It's something the deferring team can influence with the way they manage the clock.

 

On the other hand, you're stating that there is no advantage to deferring, and that's not true either.

 

Nope.  Go back and read my first post in this thread before you try to put words in my mouth.  I said there's no mathematical proof that deferring the opening kickoff gives you a better chance to have the ball at the end of the half.

 

Later I posted the article that said "ESPN found no statistical advantage to taking the ball to open the second half rather than the first, but perhaps coaches are aiming at a psychological advantage."  But you didn't agree there was enough data in the article.  Fair enough. But you still want to move the goal post without any proof they're wrong.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say in the Houston game the advantage was in getting the ball first and then scoring 2 touchdowns in the first quarter.  Houston felt like they were playing from behind the whole game, which they were, and their decisions showed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

Nope.  Go back and read my first post in this thread before you try to put words in my mouth.  I said there's no mathematical proof that deferring the opening kickoff gives you a better chance to have the ball at the end of the half.

 

Later I posted the article that said "ESPN found no statistical advantage to taking the ball to open the second half rather than the first, but perhaps coaches are aiming at a psychological advantage."  But you didn't agree there was enough data in the article.  Fair enough. But you still want to move the goal post without any proof they're wrong.

 

Actually you need to go back and read my first post.  I said

 

Quote

If you look at how possessions usually work out if you defer you usually have the ball to end the half and then again to start the second half.   I believe that is why most teams defer.  Its math

 

And as another poster has already stated.  The average TOP is slightly more than 2.5 minutes per drive.  

 

So taken that average the team that defers would get the ball to end the half and again to start the second half.  

 

Without digging up every game this yr I gave the 4 playoff games as an example and 3 of the 4 teams that had the ball second also had the ball to end the half?

 

Is it guaranteed? No But is does happen more often than not and that IMO is why coached defer

 

And since you are a mathematics guy I am sure you can do the research and of the 512 regular season games you can come up with an answer to this question.  It would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks for doing this for us BTW

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

Nope.  Go back and read my first post in this thread before you try to put words in my mouth.  I said there's no mathematical proof that deferring the opening kickoff gives you a better chance to have the ball at the end of the half.

 

Later I posted the article that said "ESPN found no statistical advantage to taking the ball to open the second half rather than the first, but perhaps coaches are aiming at a psychological advantage."  But you didn't agree there was enough data in the article.  Fair enough. But you still want to move the goal post without any proof they're wrong.

 

 

I'm absolutely NOT moving the goalposts, as I never claimed that deferring the opening kickoff guarantees you end the first half with the ball. My engaging the discussion in no way implies that I agree with that poster. Those are his goalposts, not mine.

 

And you posted the link to the ESPN study and bolded the line stating there's no statistical advantage to deferring. I'm not putting words in your mouth, you presented that line as if that's the stance you're taking. Is it not?

 

To the point, if we're going to talk about it, the ESPN conclusion is fallacious, at best. There has never been a credible claim that deferring the kickoff provides an inherent statistical advantage; it's not what I'm arguing, and that's not the reason NFL coaches defer the opening kickoff.

 

Deferring the opening kickoff provides teams the opportunity to have two offensive possessions in a row. That opportunity realistically does not exist if you receive the opening kickoff. Between the high rate of touchbacks which precludes turnovers, and the low rate of success on onside kick attempts, the team kicking off the second half has next to zero opportunity to have two offensive possessions in a row at that point in the game.

 

The argument is not and never has been -- despite what the other poster said -- that deferring gives your team a greater chance of ending the first half with the ball. That's not math; it's nonsense. The argument is not and never has been that deferring gives your team a greater chance to win the game, or that there is any statistical evidence that deferring teams win more games because they defer. Coaches who excel at game management can try to influence the flow of the first half so that their team has the ball at or near the end of the half, but there is no discernible link between the opening kickoff and the final possession of the first half.

 

The reason NFL coaches defer is, as stated above, to give their team the opportunity to have two offensive possessions in a row. That opportunity realistically does not exist if you elect to receive the opening kickoff.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Chloe6124 said:

I said the same thing. With as bad as their defense is if we could go up 7 to start the game that could change everything. If we let them go up 7 that gets the crowd going even more and the players. 

“that gets the crowd going”

2 or 3 years ago I called the Colts  “complaint department”, which the lady said, “I guess that would be me.” As I saw the game against the Jets, I mentioned how the fans were quiet and one fan was reading a newspaper when the Jets were reading to score. Move to last year. I saw a lady leaning on a man and she appeared to be sleeping.

Now to this year. More noise and even a meter reading indicating which end was loudest.

As for the defense, I saw awesome potential in the first few games which gave me even greater faith in my Colts. Now look at us. I feel confident that whatever we choose post the coin toss, the other team better be reading for a very good Colts team.

Someday, we will attend a game at Lucas Oil Stadium. Until that time, to all my fans family, get louder and be the greatest fans in the NFL.

Go Colts!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I'm absolutely NOT moving the goalposts, as I never claimed that deferring the opening kickoff guarantees you end the first half with the ball. My engaging the discussion in no way implies that I agree with that poster. Those are his goalposts, not mine.

 

And you posted the link to the ESPN study and bolded the line stating there's no statistical advantage to deferring. I'm not putting words in your mouth, you presented that line as if that's the stance you're taking. Is it not?

 

To the point, if we're going to talk about it, the ESPN conclusion is fallacious, at best. There has never been a credible claim that deferring the kickoff provides an inherent statistical advantage; it's not what I'm arguing, and that's not the reason NFL coaches defer the opening kickoff.

 

Deferring the opening kickoff provides teams the opportunity to have two offensive possessions in a row. That opportunity realistically does not exist if you receive the opening kickoff. Between the high rate of touchbacks which precludes turnovers, and the low rate of success on onside kick attempts, the team kicking off the second half has next to zero opportunity to have two offensive possessions in a row at that point in the game.

 

The argument is not and never has been -- despite what the other poster said -- that deferring gives your team a greater chance of ending the first half with the ball. That's not math; it's nonsense. The argument is not and never has been that deferring gives your team a greater chance to win the game, or that there is any statistical evidence that deferring teams win more games because they defer. Coaches who excel at game management can try to influence the flow of the first half so that their team has the ball at or near the end of the half, but there is no discernible link between the opening kickoff and the final possession of the first half.

 

The reason NFL coaches defer is, as stated above, to give their team the opportunity to have two offensive possessions in a row. That opportunity realistically does not exist if you elect to receive the opening kickoff.

 

As to the bolded/underlined sentence - that was my whole original point!  So we agree on that - there's no 'math' that proves that deferring gives your team a greater chance of ending up with the ball at the end of the half.  Let's put that to bed.  If some people want to think that a study of 4 games is mathematical evidence, I'm cool with that. 

 

The ESPN article said that when they first introduced the rule allowing to defer in 2008, 99% of the coaches took the ball first.  Gradually, over time, upwards of 80% defer.  The article points out that there was NO STATISTICAL ADVANTAGE to that logic. That's all. I don't know why you think that article is fallacious. Obviously the goal is to get the back to back possession.  But, according to them, there was no proof that it helped.  Do you have statistics proving otherwise?  If so, please post them.

 

I'm well aware of why they want to do it, and that some teams are better at it than others.  But none of that has to do with the original poster who claimed deferring gave you a better chance to have the ball at the end of the half because "it's math".   What I meant by you moving the goal post is bringing all the other stuff into it, when I never argued about or against any of it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am pretty sure that Frank Reich is a "win the toss, 99% of the time defer." And if I am not mistaken, based on some research done at some point, the only time you don't defer is if weather conditions are going to play a big role at some point in the game (in which case you select the opportune field side for the opportune time whenever that might be). Alternatively, if weather conditions are known to get exponentially worse through the course of the game, you receive and try to put valuable points on the board.

 

But the bottom line is (in my opinion as well), you defer 99% of the time. Especially with how complete our offense is. If defense can get a first stop, it would be HUGE in this game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

Let's put that to bed.

 

Let's take it out back and shoot it. It's not true. We agree.

 

Quote

The article points out that there was NO STATISTICAL ADVANTAGE to that logic. That's all. I don't know why you think that article is fallacious.

 

It's fallacious because creating a statistical advantage is not the point of deferring the opening kick.

 

It's like saying 'changing your car tires doesn't make your car go faster.' Do all the studies you want to prove that, but that's not why people change their car tires.

 

And further proof that ESPN missed the point is the whole 'teams are just copying the Pats' thing that pretty much everything seems to come down to. No, it has nothing to do with copying the Pats. 

 

Quote

What I meant by you moving the goal post is bringing all the other stuff into it, when I never argued about or against any of it.

 

I joined the discussion and brought into it the factors that I think are relevant. I wasn't piggybacking on another argument. And I engaged you because of how it seems you're presenting the ESPN conclusion. I didn't move the goal posts, I just presented my argument.

 

Now whether the opportunity to get back to back possessions outweighs whatever advantage comes with receiving the opening kick (if said advantage even exists), that's something that should be studied extensively. But when you get that back to back possession advantage, and you score TDs on both, it swings the win probability dramatically. It's going to be hard to argue against that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.