Deferring the opening kickoff has become such an automatic NFL decision that even Dak Prescott nearly got tangled in the rules. Before a December 2019 game against the Los Angeles Rams, the Dallas Cowboys quarterback won the toss and initially talked about kicking. Only afterward did he clarify that Dallas wanted to defer.
That distinction mattered. Choosing to kick isn’t the same as deferring, and the confusion nearly handed Los Angeles the opening possession of both halves. NFL officials reviewed the audio and corrected the ruling at halftime. Dallas eventually won 44–21.
The episode exposed how deeply the decision has entered football’s muscle memory. Win the toss, defer, trust the defense, and chase the halftime double dip.
But what happens when that strategy gives the opponent exactly what it wants?
A team might enter Sunday with a carefully scripted opening drive, favorable matchups and a chance to force an opponent into an early comeback. Instead, it sends out its defense and hopes those advantages survive until its first possession. Deferring the opening kickoff generally makes statistical sense, but certain matchups can turn that conventional advantage into a strategic risk.
How the Halftime Double Dip Became Football’s Default
The obsession began with a rule change. In 2008, the NFL allowed teams that won the opening coin toss to defer their choice until the second half. Before that, captains couldn’t save their decision in the same way.
Coaches immediately recognized the appeal. Their offense could score late in the second quarter, head into the locker room, then receive the ball again to open the third. Two scoring opportunities could arrive without the opponent running an offensive play between them.
The numbers support that logic.
In an October 2019 analysis for Sharp Football, John Shirley of Sports Info Solutions examined 778 games beginning in 2016 in which both offenses scored at least one touchdown. Teams receiving after halftime scored during the final minute of the first half and on their opening third-quarter possession 12 percent of the time.
The analysis also found that teams receiving the second-half kickoff outscored their opponents by an average of 1.6 points during that half. The comparable first-half advantage for opening receivers reached just 0.6 points. Those figures describe observed scoring patterns, not a guaranteed benefit from winning the toss.
There’s a reason coaches keep deferring. The strategy has a sound statistical foundation.
The mistake comes when those averages replace actual game preparation. A favorable second-half possession doesn’t erase everything that happens during the first thirty minutes. Against the wrong opponent, that wait can become expensive.
Denver Showed the Danger of Giving Away the First Punch
On October 6, 2019, the Los Angeles Chargers won the opening toss against the Denver Broncos and deferred. That left Joe Flacco and a struggling Denver offense with the first possession.
Flacco opened with a 26-yard completion to tight end Jeff Heuerman. Running back Phillip Lindsay followed with a 21-yard gain, then added another 12 yards to reach the red zone.
Seven plays and 75 yards later, Lindsay crossed the goal line. Denver led 7–0 after just 3:54.
The Chargers punted on their opening possession. Denver responded with a 70-yard touchdown pass from Flacco to Courtland Sutton. A team that entered the afternoon without a win suddenly led 14–0 in the first quarter.
The Broncos eventually won 20–13, despite getting shut out in the third quarter. The official NFL play-by-play confirms both the opening deferral and Denver’s explosive start.
The toss alone didn’t cause Los Angeles to lose. Denver played well defensively, and the Chargers committed costly mistakes. Still, the sequence illustrates the risk behind deferring the opening kickoff.
Los Angeles got its preferred second-half possession, but Denver took a 17-point lead into the locker room. That deficit changed the play-calling options on both sidelines. The Broncos could lean on their running game and manage field position, while the Chargers had to chase points instead of patiently building drives.
That’s the hidden cost of surrendering the opening possession: an early scoring burst can force an opponent to abandon its preferred game plan long before the second-half kickoff arrives.
Why Scripted Opening Drives Matter More Than Coaches Admit
NFL coordinators don’t spend an entire week preparing their opening possessions by accident. Those early calls often target a coverage weakness, establish offensive tendencies or test how defenders react to motion.
A July 16, 2026, Pro Football Focus study by Daire Carragher examined 1,425 opening plays from the 2021–2025 regular seasons. It found that offenses used pre-snap motion on 74.2 percent of opening plays, compared with 57.8 percent of other offensive snaps.
The study also found that 46.4 percent of opening-play dropbacks involved play-action, compared with 25.1 percent on other passing plays. Carragher examined each game’s first offensive snap, not both teams’ opening drives.
Those differences reflect how deliberately coaches approach the opening moments.
Take Matt LaFleur’s Green Bay Packers. Carragher identified five opening-play trick calls from 2021 through 2025, including fake tosses, reverse jet sweeps and a flea flicker. Green Bay averaged an NFL-best 8.5 yards per opening play during that period.
Receiving first offers a chance to attack before the opponent has seen a live snap of the game plan. It also lets the offense test the defensive response before the score forces either coordinator to adjust.
Of course, deferring doesn’t erase the offensive script. It simply gives the opposing offense the first opportunity to execute its own.
Now consider the matchup from a defensive coordinator’s perspective. If two starting cornerbacks are unavailable and Patrick Mahomes lines up across the field, asking that weakened secondary to survive the opening drive carries obvious risk.
The Chiefs might attack a replacement corner with motion, bunch formations and quick throws. An early touchdown then gives Kansas City room to control field position and play selection. That’s a hypothetical scenario, not a claim about one particular Chiefs game.
For that opponent, deferring the opening kickoff could mean giving away the game’s most favorable offensive opportunity. The deciding factor isn’t momentum as an abstract force. It’s how the first score changes the plays each coordinator can comfortably call.
The Numbers Behind Scoring First Tell a More Complicated Story
There’s a reason coaches care about landing the first touchdown. Playing from ahead makes almost everything easier.
Shirley’s Sports Info Solutions research found that the team receiving the opening kickoff scored the game’s first offensive touchdown 56 percent of the time. Teams that scored the first offensive touchdown won 66 percent of those games.
That’s a strong connection, but it doesn’t mean receiving first creates a similar jump in win probability. Better teams tend to score first because they’re better, not simply because they touch the ball first.
There’s another catch. The same analysis found that opening receivers scored on their first possession only 40 percent of the time. Taking the ball first gives an offense an opportunity, not a guaranteed early lead.
The bigger question concerns what happens after halftime.
Coaches often talk about the third-quarter kickoff as though receiving it carries some hidden advantage beyond the possession itself. Two economists, Jared Quenzel and Paul Shea, decided to test that assumption.
Rather than compare games with different halftime scores, they focused on 429 NFL games that reached halftime tied between 1994 and 2012. That gave them a useful starting point. Neither team could blame a second-half defeat on already trailing when the third quarter began.
They examined the football that produced those ties. Rushing yards, turnovers, sacks and other first-half details all entered the picture. Then they asked whether the team receiving after halftime enjoyed a meaningful edge in winning.
The answer surprised them. Receiving the second-half kickoff showed no statistically significant advantage in their sample.
Their study, published in the Journal of Sports Economics in 2016, found that the pregame point spread predicted the eventual winner more reliably than those first-half details. In other words, the team bookmakers considered stronger still carried the clearest edge when the second half began.
For coaches, the takeaway is simpler than the research might sound. Getting the ball after halftime doesn’t magically make a team more likely to win. The opponent still matters, and so does everything that happens before the break.
There are limits to the finding. The study included games from before the NFL introduced the modern deferral rule. It also examined tied games rather than every possible score and matchup. Still, it challenges the idea that securing the third-quarter kickoff always outweighs the chance to score first.
And that’s where the decision becomes interesting.
Imagine a team with an elite passing offense facing a depleted secondary. The staff believes its opening script offers an unusually good chance to score. Receiving could let that offense attack immediately and force the opponent away from its preferred game plan.
Deferring would preserve the second-half possession, but the offense might lose that early matchup advantage.
A sound win probability model should compare both possibilities. It must consider expected scoring, field position, clock management and how teams adjust after falling behind.
If receiving first produces a higher estimated chance of winning, deferring the opening kickoff becomes the inferior choice for that particular game.
The available research doesn’t establish how often that happens. It does show why treating every opening toss the same way can oversimplify a complicated decision.
Weather and the New Kickoff Rules Add Another Variable
Imagine a December game at Soldier Field. The forecast calls for strengthening winds, and the offensive staff expects passing conditions to deteriorate after the opening quarter.
Receiving the opening kickoff could allow the offense to attack through the air while conditions remain manageable. Waiting creates the possibility of running that same script with swirling gusts and a more restrictive passing game.
Highmark Stadium presents similar strategic considerations during Buffalo’s winter schedule. Wind can affect deep throws, punts and field goals, making the choice of which goal to defend another important part of coin-toss strategy.
Neither stadium automatically makes receiving the better choice. Coaches must consider the weather expected during each quarter, not just the temperature at kickoff.
The NFL’s newer kickoff format adds another variable.
At the April 1, 2025, Annual League Meeting, NFL owners voted to make the dynamic kickoff permanent after its 2024 trial. They also moved the touchback spot from the 30-yard line to the 35-yard line for qualifying kicks into the end zone.
That adjustment changed the field-position calculation.
A coach facing a dangerous return specialist must weigh the risk of a long return against the cost of automatically giving away the 35-yard line. Those decisions influence the expected starting position for either offense.
Deferring the opening kickoff becomes more complicated when field position, kickoff coverage and weather favor one particular half. The ordinary statistical advantage may shrink or reverse under those conditions.
But this isn’t an argument for choosing to receive every time the wind picks up. Coaches still need to compare the value of the first offensive possession against the second-half opportunity they would surrender.
The Better Coin Toss Decision Starts Before Sunday
The difference between a good kickoff decision and a bad one often appears long before the captains walk toward midfield.
During the week, coaches study defensive personnel, opening-drive tendencies and field-position data. Those same reports should help determine whether their offense benefits more from starting the game or beginning the second half.
For some teams, deferring the opening kickoff remains the sensible default. A dominant defense can force an early punt, hand its offense favorable field position and preserve the opportunity to receive after halftime.
For others, the equation changes.
A team facing an explosive offense with a depleted secondary might prefer to keep its defense off the field initially. Another could have a particularly favorable set of scripted plays against an opponent struggling with coverage communication. A third might anticipate weather conditions that make early passing opportunities unusually valuable.
None of those situations guarantees a better result. They simply create reasons to challenge the automatic choice.
The NFL’s halftime double dip also deserves perspective. Shirley’s analysis found that teams receiving after halftime completed the late-first-half and early-third-quarter scoring combination in 12 percent of the games studied.
That leaves most games without the prized sequence.
A ball-control opponent can drain the second-quarter clock. One holding penalty can ruin a scoring drive. An interception can destroy the entire plan. The strategy offers a valuable possibility, not a promised pair of possessions.
Coaches should also avoid treating a single loss as evidence that the coin toss cost them the game. The Chargers’ 2019 defeat against Denver offers a useful example of an unfavorable start, but it doesn’t establish what would have happened had Los Angeles received first.
That uncertainty cuts both ways.
The Next Coin Toss Should Be About the Matchup
There is no reason for the NFL to abandon deferring. The numbers from Sports Info Solutions support its value as a general strategy, and the chance to score across halftime remains attractive.
But general strategies don’t play football games. Individual teams do.
The decision changes when the matchup changes. A defense missing key starters may struggle against the opponent’s opening script. A quarterback facing a vulnerable secondary may have an early opportunity worth exploiting. Strong winds can reduce the value of waiting until later to throw the ball.
Coaches already make similar calculations on fourth down.
They consider distance, score, field position and the strength of their offense. Nobody should recommend the same fourth-down choice in every situation. The coin toss deserves that same attention, even if its effect on the final score is usually smaller.
Deferring the opening kickoff should therefore remain a default, not an obligation. If a coaching staff’s matchup analysis shows that receiving first creates greater expected winning value, it should take the ball without worrying about convention.
That doesn’t require predicting the future. It requires acknowledging that the league-wide average can’t capture every injured cornerback, favorable offensive matchup or passing advantage.
The best decision might still be to defer. In plenty of games, it probably will be.
But sometimes an offense has the perfect opening script, the right personnel and a defense across from it that has spent the entire week worrying about precisely those first fifteen plays.
Handing away that opportunity isn’t always smart football.
When the coin stops spinning and the captain announces the decision, the crowd hears a routine exchange. The coaching staff should hear something more consequential.
Is the first possession worth more to this team than the one waiting after halftime?
That question, rather than habit, should decide whether deferring the opening kickoff helps a team’s win probability or quietly works against it.
READ MORE: Fourth-and-Short Analytics: The NFL Coaches Refusing to Punt in Enemy Territory
FAQs
Q1. Why do NFL teams defer the opening kickoff?
Teams defer to receive after halftime. That creates a chance to score late in the second quarter and again at the start of the third.
Q2. Can deferring the opening kickoff hurt a team’s chances of winning?
Yes. An unfavorable matchup, bad weather or an opponent’s fast start can make receiving first the better strategic choice.
Q3. What happens if an NFL team chooses to kick instead of defer?
The team uses its first-half choice. Its opponent can then choose to receive the second-half kickoff, potentially forcing the first team to kick twice.
Q4. Does scoring first increase an NFL team’s chances of winning?
Scoring first often helps teams control the game. However, stronger teams also tend to score first, so the kickoff decision alone doesn’t explain the advantage.
Q5. Did the NFL change its kickoff rules in 2025?
Yes. The NFL made the dynamic kickoff permanent and moved qualifying touchbacks to the 35-yard line, encouraging more returns.
