Kick, Receive, or Defer

[IzzyFlexion]

NDSU won the coin toss several times last season and if I remember correctly, deferred every time. It seemed that this strategy seldom resulted in anything good.
Question is, if the Bison win the toss.....what's the best option.

My vote is to take the ball right away for a few of reasons.

1) If we kick, chances are that Bibeau may only get it to the 15 or at best the 10 yardline. A big electrifying return (even if it doesn't go the distance) gives ISU a short field and their fans will be off to a loud and raucous start.

2) If we can grind out a few first downs on the first posession, we can keep the crowd more subdued at the outset which, I think, is very important.

3) It's always been my opinion, that when you defer, it looks as though you don't have a plan. I believe that it shows weakness and makes it seem as though you haven't taken any preparations to develop a strategy for this part of the game. That's why it's called WINNING the coin toss.

[HerdBot]

NDSU won the coin toss several times last season and if I remember correctly, deferred every time. It seemed that this strategy seldom resulted in anything good.
Question is, if the Bison win the toss.....what's the best option.

My vote is to take the ball right away for a few of reasons.

1) If we kick, chances are that Bibeau may only get it to the 15 or at best the 10 yardline. A big electrifying return (even if it doesn't go the distance) gives ISU a short field and their fans will be off to a loud and raucous start.

2) If we can grind out a few first downs on the first posession, we can keep the crowd more subdued at the outset which, I think, is very important.

3) It's always been my opinion, that when you defer, it looks as though you don't have a plan. I believe that it shows weakness and makes it seem as though you haven't taken any preparations to develop a strategy for this part of the game. That's why it's called WINNING the coin toss.


It's a great strategy because #1 it shows confidence in the defense and #2 the first drive of the 2nd half is the most important series of the game.

[Twentysix]

With ndsus history its very likely we score at the end of the 2nd quarter in which we get the ball back after the half. Not to mention our defense is better than our offense. Atleast until they prove me wrong.

[Bison"FANatic"]

I would rather have the ball at the beginning of the second half after I was able to make adjustments to the game plan. With our D I am comfortable deferring. Just my .02

[GradBison]

I'm pretty sure Bohl was asked about this last year, he said it was a philosophy of his or something similar. I believe it was on one of the radio shows they had/have at BWW.

[Tatanka]

Defer, then pin the opposition in the south end of the dome so they can't hear themselves think.

On the road, defer, then get the ball in the second half after halftime adjustments.

Sounds good to me.

[TransAmBison]

Defer every time. No doubt about it. Would rather have the ball to start the second half.

[TheBisonator]

I'm gonna have to agree with the preferences to defer, as it seems that we never get blown out in the first half, and more likely struggle in a close half, and getting the ball back after maybe trailing by a touchdown at halftime is the best way to go considering the circumstances.

[BisonAccountant44]

Defer, then pin the opposition in the south end of the dome so they can't hear themselves think.

On the road, defer, then get the ball in the second half after halftime adjustments.

Sounds good to me.


This ++++++

[NDSUFan_Sav]

defer then pin em deep get a 3 and out have them punt from the 15-25 and get good field position for our 1st drive, or get a huge sack or even a turnover and we're deep in their territory.....lets do this....We'll get to their QB and our LBs will hold up their Run and Daniel Eaves break out game right here!!!

[Gully]

NDSU won the coin toss several times last season and if I remember correctly, deferred every time. It seemed that this strategy seldom resulted in anything good.
Question is, if the Bison win the toss.....what's the best option.

My vote is to take the ball right away for a few of reasons.

1) If we kick, chances are that Bibeau may only get it to the 15 or at best the 10 yardline. A big electrifying return (even if it doesn't go the distance) gives ISU a short field and their fans will be off to a loud and raucous start.

2) If we can grind out a few first downs on the first posession, we can keep the crowd more subdued at the outset which, I think, is very important.

3) It's always been my opinion, that when you defer, it looks as though you don't have a plan. I believe that it shows weakness and makes it seem as though you haven't taken any preparations to develop a strategy for this part of the game. That's why it's called WINNING the coin toss.

Did you feel the same way in 2006 and 2007? It generally "resulted in something good" those years. I think it's a good strategy, especially when your defense is stronger than your offense.

[IzzyFlexion]

Wow, not only am I in the minority....but I think I'm the lone wolf in terms of wanting the ball first. Gully, you make sense with the "defense being stronger than the offense". Conversely, based on the dialogue leading up to this game it seems clear that ISU's offense is stronger than thier defense. Others bring up a good point in getting the ball to start the 2nd half after locker room adjustments are made. My arguement there is making adjustments on defense is just as important. I'm just afraid of the "quick strike" resulting in a 7-0 ISU lead with 14:09 left in the first quarter. So I'm sticking to my guns in that I'd rather see the Herd get the ball first. The longer ISU has a zero on the scoreboard..the better. (and dammit....don't anyone dare reply that my scenario gives them a chance to score on a Merten's INT!!!!!!!!!):ranting:
:D :D

[stevdock]

The only time I can remember being in favor of taking the ball first was in the late 90's when Lamar would go off tackle for an 80 yard TD on the first play more often than not. Seems like he would do that at least a couple times a season back then. Now that we are in these closer games it is more about field position and if you can get a quick 3 and out, the field has turned over to your advantage and you haven't even touched the ball yet.

[TheBisonator]

Wow, not only am I in the minority....but I think I'm the lone wolf in terms of wanting the ball first. Gully, you make sense with the "defense being stronger than the offense". Conversely, based on the dialogue leading up to this game it seems clear that ISU's offense is stronger than thier defense. Others bring up a good point in getting the ball to start the 2nd half after locker room adjustments are made. My arguement there is making adjustments on defense is just as important. I'm just afraid of the "quick strike" resulting in a 7-0 ISU lead with 14:09 left in the first quarter. So I'm sticking to my guns in that I'd rather see the Herd get the ball first. The longer ISU has a zero on the scoreboard..the better. (and dammit....don't anyone dare reply that my scenario gives them a chance to score on a Merten's INT!!!!!!!!!):ranting:
:D :D

ISU's offense may be good, but remember that our defense is really good as well.

[IzzyFlexion]

The only time I can remember being in favor of taking the ball first was in the late 90's when Lamar would go off tackle for an 80 yard TD on the first play more often than not. Seems like he would do that at least a couple times a season back then. Now that we are in these closer games it is more about field position and if you can get a quick 3 and out, the field has turned over to your advantage and you haven't even touched the ball yet.

The field position aspect is terribly important. As I mentioned in starting off the thread, I don't think that Bibeau will get the ball much past the 15. Even with a modest return that would give ISU first and ten at perhaps the 35 or so. Let's say the Bison D does stop them on 3 consecutive downs bringing up say.......4th an 2 at ISU's 43. Assuming that they have a skilled punter that could likely boom the ball out of bounds crossing the sideline at say.... the NDSU 12.
Obviously this is all hypothetical but it definately supports my "take the ball first" strategy. Now if Bibeau had shown us in past seasons that he could boom the ball deep into the endzone.....I WOULD perhaps have a different opinion.

[56BISON73]

Wow, not only am I in the minority....but I think I'm the lone wolf in terms of wanting the ball first. Gully, you make sense with the "defense being stronger than the offense". Conversely, based on the dialogue leading up to this game it seems clear that ISU's offense is stronger than thier defense. Others bring up a good point in getting the ball to start the 2nd half after locker room adjustments are made. My arguement there is making adjustments on defense is just as important. I'm just afraid of the "quick strike" resulting in a 7-0 ISU lead with 14:09 left in the first quarter. So I'm sticking to my guns in that I'd rather see the Herd get the ball first. The longer ISU has a zero on the scoreboard..the better. (and dammit....don't anyone dare reply that my scenario gives them a chance to score on a Merten's INT!!!!!!!!!):ranting:
:D :D

I was also thinking of taking the ball. I was hoping for us to get a quick strike to set them back on their heels.

[NDSUstudent]

I typically like to defer at home(the defense plays at another level at home). On the road it is more of a 50/50 thing, if we are playing a weaker team and a quick score could get them to fold early I would like to take the ball first, but against a great or middle of the road team I say put the defense on the field and play for field position. In a close game that first drive in the second half can also set the tone for the rest of the game.

[A1pigskin]

Wow, not only am I in the minority....but I think I'm the lone wolf in terms of wanting the ball first. Gully, you make sense with the "defense being stronger than the offense". Conversely, based on the dialogue leading up to this game it seems clear that ISU's offense is stronger than thier defense. Others bring up a good point in getting the ball to start the 2nd half after locker room adjustments are made. My arguement there is making adjustments on defense is just as important. I'm just afraid of the "quick strike" resulting in a 7-0 ISU lead with 14:09 left in the first quarter. So I'm sticking to my guns in that I'd rather see the Herd get the ball first. The longer ISU has a zero on the scoreboard..the better. (and dammit....don't anyone dare reply that my scenario gives them a chance to score on a Merten's INT!!!!!!!!!):ranting:
:D :D



I'll agree with you. By the way, I think Mertens will do just fine.

[DjKyRo]

I'm confident in our D and their ability in the game, but athleticism is a concern I have. Our first line needs to be on their game, and getting the ball in their hands right away is going to maximize the utility of their fatigue (or lack thereof at the start of the game). ISU has more scholarships and more resources to attract more athletic players - therefore in my mind we need to use our energy while we have it.

[A1pigskin]

I'm confident in our D and their ability in the game, but athleticism is a concern I have. Our first line needs to be on their game, and getting the ball in their hands right away is going to maximize the utility of their fatigue (or lack thereof at the start of the game). ISU has more scholarships and more resources to attract more athletic players - therefore in my mind we need to use our energy while we have it.


We'll see in the 2nd half.