Title Talk: Better To Receive Or Defer?
by Peter Bean on Dec 30, 2009 4:38 AM CST
in Texas Longhorns Football
Email
PrintSo I got hired to put together a championship edition of "The Eyes of Texas", which.... Okay, first of all, don't worry: no jinx, the "Yea, Alabama" folks were hired to do one, too. (Yes, I will be even more depressed should Texas lose because all this work will never see the light of day.)
I've been writing reviews of each 2009 Longhorns game and have been pondering the following question: If Texas wins the toss in the BCS Title Game, should it opt to receive the opening kickoff or defer to the second half? Presumably your answer would be the same if Alabama wins the toss (e.g. if you prefer Texas receives after winning the toss, you hope Alabama defers to the second half if they win the coin flip), but if not, explain why.
I'll throw up a poll with this one, but I'm really interested in thoughtful replies to the question in the comments. Talk to me.
38 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Speaking of throwing up...
I am sooooo nervous about the game. Can’t sleep, diet sux, either constipated or the other thing (I know, TMI). The only thing keeping me going is planning the trip and tailgate.
Regarding this particular intangible, I would think Mack’s formula should not be tinkered with. While I appreciate the possibility that lobbing a wrench in Saban’s greased game plan might be worth the effort, I just don’t see Mack bucking his system should the Horns win the opening toss.
I say stick with the formula and if Texas wins toss, put it’s best unit on the field first. We just might force a TO which would be an early momentum changer.
"We don't freestyle Texas Fight, big boy." - Coach Brown
I was the same way for a couple of days, I thought it was me doing the Christmas cooking this year. I sat down and watched the Bama-Tennessee game and it worked the wonders that Immodium couldn’t.
by SpiritOfTheFedora on Dec 30, 2009 11:17 AM CST up reply actions
I'm with Mack on this one
He has said in the past that he thinks that the defense can get a quick stop and then get the ball back and prefers to have the ball starting to second half to capture momentum. With how well the Longhorns finish before the half — scoring in nine of 13 games in the last two minutes, a good drive at the start of the second half can really put momentum firmly with the Longhorns, as well as cut into or drastically increase a lead. To me, starting with the ball in the second half is more important and comes at a more crucial point of the game.
by Wescott Eberts (GoBR) on Dec 30, 2009 5:34 AM CST reply actions
Kick it
Agree with Ghost’s comments above and here are a few additional notes…
If I’d answered this question after last season, I would have said, "receive" because I didn’t think there was a defense in college football that could stop our offense. With Colt running and throwing to Quon and Ship, we were able to go on long drives and wear defenses out (just ask OU). There is no such thing as a total ball control offense, but we had about the closest thing to it in 2008.
This year, the offense has relied more heavily on quick strikes and short fields to score. We’re just not as consistent on converting 3rd downs and maintaining those 15-18 play drives (one of you stats guys please help me out on this). I’m guessing the average number of plays on scoring drives was far fewer this year than it was last year.
So throw in a potent defense, add it up, carry the one and for me anyway, it means we’d prefer to kick off, play good D, force a punt, and hopefully get the ball back with no more than 60 yards to go (30 for a FG attempt) versus starting from inside our own 25. (Of course, that’s typical of any team with a decent defense).
Field position is a major factor in every game, but I think it will be particularly so against Bama. Against our defense, they probably won’t have a lot of success going on long drives just as we won’t against their D. Short fields may be the only decent opportunity either team has to really score making the punting game and not turning the ball over crucial.
Be nobody but yourself in a world that desperately wants you to be like everybody else.
Third-down conversion is down
Don’t have the numbers in front of me but I looked it up recently. I think the big thing was not converting third down and longs, which Texas converted at a ridiculous and probably unsustainable rate, even had Quan and OG returned. Teams taking away the crossing routes were a big part of this.
I like your thoughts on trying to get the stop and therefore get a short field. Field position was definitely more important this year — last year, it didn’t matter. Drive 99 yards? No problem, it just might take 10 completed pass but no big deal. Well getting the first couple yards were a problem. And were again this year. But anyway, not as many long drives, which would be interesting to take a look at in the long terrible off season for football that is nearly upon us.
by Wescott Eberts (GoBR) on Dec 30, 2009 6:40 AM CST up reply actions
Bill C. on Rock M Nation brought this up in his review of Texas
We converted an incredibly high percentage of third and longs. Losing Cosby and Ogbonnaya were bound to lower those already difficult-to-sustain numbers.
by TheElusiveShadow on Dec 30, 2009 3:49 PM CST up reply actions
Normally
I’m one to prefer the defer. But as this season went on, we seemingly never really got off to a blazing start from the opening kickoff of the second half. In the matchups, I like our defense against their offense better than our offense against their defense, so I’m inclined to take the ball in the 1st half and try to set the tone for our offense and the game.
Here are a few warrants to back my claim: (Sorry, not cool enough to do bullets like PB and GoBR)
1.) Give Monroe or Goodwin a chance to take it back on the 1st play of the game. This WILL set the tone of the game without our offense even walking onto the field. I know some of you can point to the 2006 BCS and Superbowls as the team who took the opening kickoff for a TD lost, but that was because those teams didn’t have an offense. (Bucks and Bears)
2.) If we defer, and Arenas takes the kickoff for a TD, then the reverse is set and we’re playing catchup to a team who can easily control the game clock on the ground. We need to strike first.
3.) We’re one of the best KO Return teams in America, so its a good chance we’ll have good starting position to try and set the tone. If we fail to score, we can win the battle of field position, and pin Bama back deep in their territory. This will lead to added pressure on Bama and will increase their chances for a mistake which our Defense is VERY adapt to take advantage of.
4.)If we get a decent lead, its ours. Bama is not the best team to play from behind. They’re not Tech or UH. Their bread and butter is running the ball with Ingram and Richardson, so that makes Bama have to take more chances and risks through the air with McElroy. Our defense can keep everything in front of them and make this game theirs.
Of course all of this can be applied to taking the ball in the 3rd quarter as well, but I feel we need to strike first and make Bama play a game they’re not accustomed to playing against an elite defense. If they can come from behind and beat us at our own game, the deserve to be National Champions, and I’ll respectfully tip my hat to them.
Get off your knees Greg, you're blowin' the game.
Solid reasoning.
And a strong argument for the other side. Something to chew on for sure.
by Wescott Eberts (GoBR) on Dec 30, 2009 6:41 AM CST up reply actions
counterpoint
Ohio state returned the opening kick off in the title game a few years ago. I’m just sayin’.
I know
I put that in my post. They lost the game for plenty of other reasons that year.
Get off your knees Greg, you're blowin' the game.
Kreiss
Great point Re field position. Assuming we punt from near mid-field of course.
All around solid comments and unfortunately I have nothing substantial to add so I’ll be mum. But I’d defer.
Off-topic. Can we get some good stewards of BON to trek over to RBR. We are taking a tossing because some ill-informed ‘horns’ fans are spouting off like teenage trolls.
by DaGoose on Dec 30, 2009 8:28 AM CST via mobile reply actions
I saw a couple of those trash talkers
and responded with my usual tactfulness :) The ones I saw don’t post anything here and can’t respond to some of the some clever retorts they get at RBR. They (RBR) are a good group compared to most of the Big 12 people we get here. Main thing I took in over there was that they don’t think we will even try to establish a running game and they think Saban will use his normal defensive scheme to cover Shipley.
Agree that everybody here has already covered this pretty well. I like Kreiss’ points, the only reservation being what if we don’t move the ball the first series (not uncommon) and it backfires plus Bama gets the ball to start the second half. I don’t think we need to pull out all the stops to win this game though some imagination on offense will be required.
After watching Johnson play like a normal human being against Georgia I think we’ll see Bama revert to the mean offensively against a pumped UT defense. And I think the coaches changing things up sends a message to our guys that was not well received when we changed things up against aggie. So I’ll go ‘dance with the one that brung ya’.
by SpiritOfTheFedora on Dec 30, 2009 11:09 AM CST up reply actions
Musschamp's squad vs Davis' squad
If all of the starting special teams players are healthy (and we should deploy considerable assets to this squad for this game), we defer and kick off. If Bama starts inside the 25 and the defense can stop the run on first and second down (possible play action pass), then a pass on third……..we have Shipley getting us good field position to start the game.
This has been the blueprint all season.
Receive
One weakness with Alabama is their kick coverage….I believe they are 117th. We are very strong on kick return. Play field position.
But if our first play is a 3 yard pass to the flats, its over. Cody Johnson pounding must be part of the equation if we want to avoid another Nebraska/OU offensive performance.
Can't get enough of that cowbell !!!
by MeatchickenHorn on Dec 30, 2009 8:33 AM CST reply actions
I thought Tre Newton had been named the starter. I agree Cody should be, even if it’s just to be an extra blocker. He would have helped slow Suh down some with chips and can buy 2 more seconds for downfield reads and attempts.
Saban will have his db’s in press coverage a lot. Colt and the receiver’s will need some time to make this strategy unsuccessful. If Johnson can buy this for Colt then Bama will play more zone. Either way a good thing.
Hook ’Em
If we've learned anything about "starters" this season...
… it’s that Mack is glad to change things up in the middle of the game. Now whether or not he or Greg realize when a change is or isn’t work is another matter entirely.
Havent' read the comments yet, but here are my thoughts:
I think we should defer to the second half. Alabama is known more for their defense. Don’t put them out there first. Let their offense come on, show them that our defense is just nasty, get a good push (hopefully 3 & out or better!) and get the early momentum. This also allows you to set the tone for the 2nd half as well.
It fits our team better to defer.
You can't spell "Keys to winning" without a K....
A steady dose of Colt, Cody, Kindle, and our kicking game will be the difference maker in putting Texas over Alabama for one for the thumb! Come on…that’s original stuff I’m throwing out here! =)
I hope everyone has a Happy New Year!
"I've never gone into a game trying to win the Heisman Trophy; I go into a game trying to win." - Colt McCoy
More blessed to receive
Here are a few more small advantages to taking the ball:
- By asserting our right to receive we display dominance over the opponent. We are dictating the terms. They are surrendering control to us.
-The offense is by nature more proactive than the defense. Offenses are more settled taking the field since the first few plays are probably scripted. Therefore, receiving helps with early game jitters.
-About half the time, receiving will get us the extra possession at the end of the first half. (That is also possible in the second half if we defer, but score, timeouts, and delay tactics are more likely to affect who gets final possession of the game.)
-Our second half defense will have the benefit of halftime adjustments against the opponent. For our team this is more important than half time adjustments to the offense.
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. If they get mad, you're a mile away AND you have their shoes.
I want our defense to send a message first and I think it will.
"Football's so important in Texas. On the West Coast, it's a social. On the East Coast, it's a culture. Here, it's a religion."
-- Major Applewhite
Our kickoff coverage this year has been suspect
I dont want them to start the game on the 40. I’d choose to receive.
by the other Andrew on Dec 30, 2009 9:36 AM CST reply actions
Kicking seems like the only rational choice
I’m always amazed by the arguments in favor of taking the ball in the first half. “Momentum” and “make a statement” and “quick start” are the wishy-washy phrases that tend to dominate them. Maybe these things matter but I find it hard to believe that momentum from minute 1 will maintain through minute 60. I think a far better case, grounded in things we can actually see and measure (such as points scored!), is made for kicking off.
By kicking off and opting to start on defense, you guarantee that your team will be the only team with a chance to have two consecutive (for practical purposes) possessions — the final one of the first half and the first one of the second half. Simply by virtue of saying, “nah, we’ll take the ball later”, you have a chance at a 14-point run with the other team unable to do anything about it. I don’t think you can overstate the significance of this.
Beyond that, though, the advantage of being the first team to control the ball in the second half, with half a game’s worth of information now known, is pretty clear: you have the ball with a much better idea of what you need to do and you still have time to do it. Sure, maybe you’re in a big hole, but I’m skeptical that the big hole was dug with the “momentum” the other team got from receiving the ball in the first half — I bet, most times, they would’ve dug the hole for you anyhow.
Although it’s obvious that possessions are not completely independent from one another, I think kicking off is the only rational strategy in this game. You might as well be asking if I’d rather start on defense or offense in overtime.
wishy-washy?
Don’t get me started :) Please respect others’ opinions.
by SpiritOfTheFedora on Dec 30, 2009 11:54 AM CST up reply actions
Rebuttal
First, deferring in no way ‘guarantees’ two consecutive possessions. Half the time, the other team will have the ball to end the half. When that happens, we are better off having received — or else they are going to have one more possession than us in the first half.
Second, in order to get that dream scenario of 14 consecutive points, we are going to have to score a TD on the last play of the half. And then drive the length of the field to start the second. How often does that happen? And didn’t you start out saying you didn’t think momentum was all that important?
Finally, as to knowing more after halftime, doesn’t the defense benefit as much as the offense? After all, any offensive plans made at halftime will still be good when we get our first possession after the half.
Since I forgot to mention it before, I might also note that the team that kicks off to start the half will also be the one that gets the wind in the 4th quarter. Now there is a definite advantage, I’d say.
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. If they get mad, you're a mile away AND you have their shoes.
Re-rebuttal
1. I never said that deferring guarantees that your team will have two consecutive possessions; rather, I said that deferring guarantees that your team (and only your team) has a chance at two consecutive possessions. Your “extra possession” logic works both ways and, personally, I would rather have a chance at an extra possession in the second half than the first.
2. Scoring two touchdowns in this fashion certainly isn’t the likeliest outcome (we did, however, do it against Oklahoma State this year), but who cares? Questioning the likelihood of something without providing a more likely or more beneficial alternative is not making an argument, it’s naysaying. My point is that we’re not really giving up anything by kicking off to start the game and, in return, we’re getting a chance to have two consecutive drives without needing Alabama to mess up. “Score two touchdowns” is not the critical part of what I said.
Let me put it this way: how much do you hate letting the other team score (even a field goal) at the end of the half and having to give the ball right back to them? It sucks, right? Kicking off in the first half guarantees that this will not happen.
Further, I don’t see what any of that has to do with “momentum”. While we’re on the topic, though: no, I don’t think momentum is all that important. I invite anybody to tell me, with a straight face, that a team, which made it to the BCS title game, would have its game-plan severely altered when its opponent drives down the field for a touchdown to start the game. Without even having had the opportunity to do anything on offense! To the extent that it gets our defense “pumped up” (or whatever vague concepts of goodness we invent for these conversations), I would rather just let them have the ball and have the chance at getting it twice in a row later. To me, that seems far more correlative with scoring the most points.
3. Sure, I can buy that the defense benefits as much as the offense, with respect to tendencies and what not, but that’s not the only information I was talking about. The most important part, to me, is the score. You get the benefit of knowing what you should be trying to accomplish for the final thirty minutes: if you’re in a hole, you might need to pass a little more; if you’re out ahead, you might need to run a little more.
4. Okay, you got me. Sort of. I will admit that “the wind” (which, to my knowledge is not really a factor in the Rose Bowl, but whatever) did not make the cut for “things to consider while presenting this argument”. I interpreted PB’s original question to read: “Assuming the wind factor is negligible, would you rather kick off or receive?” I guess I now have to accept the consequences!
If the wind is doing wacky things, then, sure, I guess you pick the side of the field that gives you the advantage in the 4th quarter (which means that you don’t get to pick whether you want to kick off or receive, which means that isn’t really what we’re talking about, but okay).
What were we talking about again?
One more round?
If you boil it down to whether you like a shot at two possessions in a row, of course the answer is ‘yes’. But overall, apart from turnovers, the possessions will even out, so there’s really no gain. And bear in mind that the first of those two is not a very good one — you are probably under time pressure when you try to score and a lot of the time you will just be running out the clock to end the first half. And I’d point out you get no momentum from the consecutive possessions because of the break, but you say momentum is not why. We just don’t want to feel bad if they manage to score on us at the end of half. I guess if you take the wind factor out of the equation, that may be as good a reason as any.
(My point on preparation is that whatever you do applies to your first possession of the half. It does not matter if your defense has already been on the field.)
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. If they get mad, you're a mile away AND you have their shoes.
Its always been simple reasoning for me.
Kick it to start the game. If you are losing at the half, then you get the ball. If you are winning, then its just a bonus that you get the ball.
If our offense would have scored to start the second half of the A&M game, the game would have been over.
I'm with the defer group on this one. Easy call.
If form holds (meaning turnovers and special teams plays don’t lead to a lot of points), this game will be much more like Nebraska and OU in ’09 than the ’08 style shootouts with OU, Tech, Missouri (the losing team scored in the 30s in all three).
Thus, field position is critical. Getting the ball around our 35, 40 — and making Alabama strart from its 25, 30 — will be the determining factor. Our defense can be our offense, so let the Tide take the opening KO.
Difer
Mack always difers when given the chance. That way if you syop them first then score on your opening drive, advantage Texas because they gett he ball 1st in the 2nd half. Not to mention if your also score right before the half and then get the ball first in the 3rd, that’s a 14-21 point swing.
by Ryan2907 on Dec 30, 2009 10:45 AM CST via mobile reply actions
Honestly
the weakest aspect of the Alabama team if KO coverage. With this being the biggest stage any of our players have played on there is sure to be some opening jitters. It wouldn’t be that bad of an idea to try and take advantage of our weakness on the first play.
Although I did vote defer and with two really good defenses it makes the most sense.
Auburn fans are like slinkys... not really good for anything but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.
You aren’t over here voting twice, are you? Sly devil, you.
by SpiritOfTheFedora on Dec 30, 2009 12:04 PM CST up reply actions
For this Texas team, Defer
For one simple reason – the Texas offense has been getting off to a slow start all season. If you receive the opening kickoff and go for 3-and-out, it completely negates the possible advantages of receiving first.
As an Alabama fan
I’d rather my team receive first to try to come out with some momentum early, but I think there are good arguments for both. I think the most important thing is to go ahead and make a decision on what you’ll do if you win and then concentrate on more important issues.
defense should come out first, get the stop, and get the momentum swung Texas’ way immediately (which is more than we can hope the offense to do), get the offense pumped up and ready to go.
by Displaced Longhorn on Dec 30, 2009 5:25 PM CST reply actions
I guess I would receive
The critical matchup of the entire game is Alabama’s defense vs Texas’ offensive line. I personally want to see this matchup as early as possible. If our O-line can step up and protect Colt, and give him time to air it out to his talented receiving corps early, that would be a great way to send a message early.
by goingforthecorner on Dec 30, 2009 8:00 PM CST reply actions
Wind in the 4th quarter
The team that wins the toss and elects to receive also gets choice of goal in the second half, allowing it to have the wind in the 4th quarter. Is there any benefit of deferring that matches that?
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. If they get mad, you're a mile away AND you have their shoes.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
