I might just be over reacting but does it bother anyone else that he defers the coin toss like he did again in Miami. Getting a lead first against a team like miami on the road is crucial and by giving them the ball we were quickly down 7-0. I know he has faith in our defense in getting the stop and I did too but i think our D would of had an easier time if Sanchez had the ball first and scored. I feel being up 7-0 early would of been a big momentum turn and adrenalin booster for our D that looked slow and sluggish.
Rex is a defensive coach, he wants to set the tone on defense. As a side note, giving the opponent the chance to make a mistake is a good move IMO. If they choose direction or to kick after you defer you can receive the ball both halves.
It's simple. When you have a good defense and good special teams, you kick the ball and pin them around the 20. You get a 3 and out, and you give the offense the ball with great field position (usually on your 40). It's a great strategy and have no problem with it. Of course, it didn't work out on Monday, but hindsight is 20/20.
The defense is typically amped up at the beginning of the game. They force a 3 and out at the start and they gain the possession advantage receiving it at the start of the 3rd. I'm perfectly fine with it.
I think that is pretty much the reasoning right there. I personally like it. With this team's defense, there's a good chance the other team might go 3 and out or make a mistake, which will lead to better field position for the offense (which still has some warts). Then, the offense comes out firing at the beginning of the second half with a few series already under their belts.
Actually I like it quite a bit, and have wondered in the past why other coaches don?t do it. Think about this scenario which we have seen dozens of times. The Jets have a lead right before the half, and on the last drive of the half the other team gets some points. They are fired up, and will get the ball again to start the 2nd half. Points there are often a spirit breaker. If the Jets can get some points on the first drive of the second half the momentum is broken. Most games are won and lost in the second half. I would much rather get first points in the second half then the first.
I know why he does it and yes its nice to get the ball starting off the second half but they scored on us first drive against the saints and dolphins. And yes i did feel that it was a bad decision still against the texans and i think the pats when he did and we got 3 and outs. I guess I just feel the need to set the tone early. Ny sports spoil me with offense I guess so i blame the yankees, rangers and knicks.
Setting the tone early is key, I agree. But with this team, we have a better shot to set the tone with our defense than the offense
I don't know if it would of been a momentum gain, but I am certain it wouldn't have been a gain in momentum. if the Dolphins didn't change their strategy when trailing at halftime and trailing in the fourth quarter, I hardly doubt trailing on the first possession of the game was going to send them running for the hills. conversely, if the D couldn't maintain momentum leading at the half and the 4th quarter, why would they have been able to if they were suddenly in the lead after the first possession? basically, I am saying the entire premise of this thread is asinine.
While I don't agree with the premise of the OP. I think the question of to defer or not is a valid question.
nobody said it wasn't worth discussing, what is asinine is the reasoning behind his criticism of the decision.
The guy asked a question. He , like most Jets fans , are in funky mood due to that game. So he comes here and asks other Jets fans a question and you say the premise of the question is asinine. Sorry but I disagree with you. It helps guys to be among friends that are hurting too without words like you used.
I can think of some circumstances where that may be a good idea. Low scoring game with a heavy wind advantage for example.
