http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/08/09/the-age-of-deference/
i thought the responses to his blurb were quite interesting than his own take.
i thought the responses to his blurb were quite interesting than his own take.
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Can someone please explain in english what DEFER means? Doesn't it mean to just kickoff?
Can someone please explain in english what DEFER means? Doesn't it mean to just kickoff?
defer
2 [dɪ'fɜ:] verbo intransitivo to defer to sb/sthg, hacer algo en deferencia a alguien/algo
I don't get how "defering" is any different than electing to kick.
If you defer the other team will always recieve and you will always choose to recieve after the half.
If that's what you want to do just choose to kick first.
I don't get how "defering" is any different than electing to kick.
If you defer the other team will always recieve and you will always choose to recieve after the half.
If that's what you want to do just choose to kick first.
Just think about what you said for a minute. Think it through. All the way through.I don't get how "defering" is any different than electing to kick.
If you defer the other team will always recieve and you will always choose to recieve after the half.
If that's what you want to do just choose to kick first.
It's not so hard. It's a good rule. THey way it is now, you want to LOSE the coin toss so you get to receive in the second half. Now youk can do it if you WIN the toss.Dumb rule. The concept that one team would kick off to start both halves is stupid.
Hey NFL competition committe (yeah, that's you Polian & Fisher) - try this idea that took me three seconds to come up with:
Win the coin toss. No defering. Decide on either kicking off now or later; or the end of the field you want to defend at the end of the game.
Beauty of this is that it makes it easy for any present or future coach of the Colts, no second guessing of his decision.
On the other hand, while others make simple decisions difficult, maybe we should just leave the rules as they are. Sooner or later some team will elect to kick off to the Patriots not only to begin the game, but also to begin the second half.
Here's the killer comment that explains BB's thinking...
Mad Dog wrote...
"By deferring you have a mathematical chance of back to back possesions of the football. Last drive of first half/first drive of second. Conversely you guarantee yourself that your opponent will not get back to back possesions. Over a 16 game season you get probably 3 back to backs which could put a game out of reach or keeping one gfrom getting out of reach. It is the far better thing to do statistically. As usual Belichick is ahead of the curve."
It means to allow your opponent to go first, basically. With the rule change, you can now opt to allow your opponent to receive the opening kickoff, and take the second half kickoff for yourself by deferring after you win the coin toss.
Unless I'm wrong, it has nothing to do with a statistical advantage. It has everything to do with a psychological advantage. Two halves are going to be equal statistically (in other words, the team with the ball first doesn't have longer possessions in the 2nd half than they would in the first). Instead, the advantage is psychological. A team like the Patriots gets on top of its opponents fast. It sucks to be down to the Patriots in the 1st half knowing that they get the ball first in the 2nd.
In other words, I think Mad Dog is wrong.
Unless I'm wrong, it has nothing to do with a statistical advantage.
defer
2 [dɪ'fɜ:] verbo intransitivo to defer to sb/sthg, hacer algo en deferencia a alguien/algo
Unless I'm wrong, it has nothing to do with a statistical advantage. It has everything to do with a psychological advantage. Two halves are going to be equal statistically (in other words, the team with the ball first doesn't have longer possessions in the 2nd half than they would in the first). Instead, the advantage is psychological. A team like the Patriots gets on top of its opponents fast. It sucks to be down to the Patriots in the 1st half knowing that they get the ball first in the 2nd.
In other words, I think Mad Dog is wrong.