Why did the Redskins choose to Receive the ball on the opening possession?? (NOT complaining, just wondering)

Last night was the biggest game in 13 years for the Skins and the stadium was amped up and electric. Common sense dictates that you should let your D take the field first and let the crowd work to it's advantage, and have the benefit of receiving the ball after the half so that only a disastrous first half would put you out of the game.

In fact, they even had communication problems on the opening drive.

I'm NOT complaining, or whining, or even questioning them - I'm just curious what tempted them to make that decision when they had done the contrary on almost all other coin tosses they had won on the year.

I'm fairly certain they won last night's toss and elected to receive the ball, but correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks. HTTR. And looking forward to attending my first Skins game next week.

They've received the ball every chance they've had during this streak.

Because when we were losing it seemed like every time we deferred, the other team scored on the opening possession. Seriously.

Shanny stated after the thanksgiving day game vs Dallas that he likes to receive the ball rather than defer in playoff games, and essentially every game since week 11 has been a playoff game.. Win or no playoffs

Shanny stated after the thanksgiving day game vs Dallas that he likes to receive the ball rather than defer in playoff games, and essentially every game since week 11 has been a playoff game.. Win or no playoffs

Did he really? Interesting. I had not heard that.

Yeah someone asked about it in the post game presser, not exactly sure what game it was but it was around when the streak began

If it wasn't working change it, and he did? And then why change what is working.

In Madden i always defer

In Madden i always defer

/thread, Shanahan must be wrong.

I am a big fan of deferring...we kicked off in every single game this year prior to Thanksgiving. Then on that day, we received and we've taken the ball every time sine. I prefer the way we did it early in the year. I like going defense first. If you look at it, our defense was actually good on opening drives when we deferred and/or lost the toss and kicked off.

Both Dallas games we chose to receive and the offense went three and out on both occasions. Same thing happened vs Cleveland. Looking at it, we were having more overall early success kicking off as opposed to receiving. I'd rather start on D.

I would have liked to defer in this past game just because of crowd noise. The fans were so jacked up for the game going crazy at kickoff and then all of a sudden they have to "be quiet, offense at work". At home I'd like to defer to really give the opposing offense our best 12th man.

because our defense was letting up 8 minute drives and our offense was only getting 2 possessions in the first half of games. we couldn't get any sort of because of lack of possessions

I hate getting the ball first. If we go 3 and out its such a huge momentum killer. Before Shanny said he was playing the odds and defering, now the odds have changed?

I always prefer to defer and let the defense go to work first when emotions are at their highest. When you get the ball to start the second half I see it as a win-win cause if you are down in points you have the ball and if you are ahead then you have a chance to increase the lead with halftime adjustments. just my two cents HTTR

I like deferring too and Shanny did it earlier in the season and said he was playing the odds. but we started receiving around when our streak started so why change anything. Also as another poster noted, our defense gives up long drives and even if they only end up in field goals, our offense doesn't get enough 1st quarter possessions to get into a rhythm.

If given the chance, I hope they defer Sunday.

Its funny, I was dogging Shanahan and his research showing deferers win 60% of their games. We were failing at it.

My thinking was, why in the world would he keep trotting out our defense and see them get fleeced for a long slow score in all likelihood, and in doing so, has his best player on the bench, cold, and when he finally gets in there, is already feeling pressure to score. And feeling pressure from defenses that could be more aggressive up a score.

The Bengals game, RG3s first home game, we deferred and got instantly torched. All the energy sucked out of the crowd before RG3 could even get on the field. That was the tipping point where I saw it was failing. The fans were there to see RG3. RG3 was there to win anxious to do well, why make everyone wait?

I want RG3 out as early and often as possible to pressure teams, and looks like Mike agrees.

yeah i prefer deferring, especially at home in the playoffs. the crowd is just so, so amped at kickoff.

My experience is that the crowd often hasn't even made it to the seats when the game starts. One first down or big play, the crowd grows quiet.

Our 12th man took a big hit when we left RFK anyways. While we will be amped up for the playoffs, I still think its wise to put your best foot forward.

That foot belongs to one RG3.

I don't get why this is such a big deal to fans. What difference does it make if you defer or receive to start the game? None. Because if you kick off to start the game, then you get the 2nd half kickoff. My theory, if I were a head coach, would probably be to defer. But only if I had a top flight defense. We don't have that. We have a top notch offense. So it's understandable why Shanahan would choose to receive.

Receiving puts the other team on its heels early. If we get the ball first and score, the other team is playing catch-up.

This isn't anything groundbreaking, but our defense plays better with a lead. Why not take the chance to give them an early lead?

we overanalyze everything on here. Just a couple of weeks ago, we were complaining about constantly deferring

Receiving puts the other team on its heels early. If we get the ball first and score, the other team is playing catch-up.

This isn't anything groundbreaking, but our defense plays better with a lead. Why not take the chance to give them an early lead?

True. But how often do teams take the opening kickoff and drive (usually 80 yards) down the field and score. And like I said, I can understand why Shanahan does it, because we have a really good offense. Conversely, if a team has a stout defense, why not kick off and play the field position game, because you get the opening kickoff of the 2nd half, anyway.

All I was saying is it's not a big deal either way. Not to the point that most fans seem to think.

True. But how often do teams take the opening kickoff and drive (usually 80 yards) down the field and score. And like I said, I can understand why Shanahan does it, because we have a really good offense. Conversely, if a team has a stout defense, why not kick off and play the field position game, because you get the opening kickoff of the 2nd half, anyway.

All I was saying is it's not a big deal either way. Not to the point that most fans seem to think.

True. I was just answering the OP though - nothing directed at you.

What a lot of peeps opposing getting the ball first dont realize is that it's giving us a better chance to see how teams are choosing to defend us. We went with a lot of Zone/Read PA passes initially and saw that the Cowboys were simply sitting back and not biting at all. We know what happened in the second half.