Florio on Pats deferring after the coin toss

[SVN]

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.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

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."

 

[Keegs]

if all teams don't defer, ill never understand it.

i always did that in madden.

but seriously tho..........

 

[Richter]

Can someone please explain in english what DEFER means? Doesn't it mean to just kickoff?

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.

 

[Keegs]

defer
2 [dɪ'fɜ:] verbo intransitivo to defer to sb/sthg, hacer algo en deferencia a alguien/algo

 

[JSn]

Can someone please explain in english what DEFER means? Doesn't it mean to just kickoff?

Defer IS English.

Defer:
postpone: hold back to a later time; "let's defer the exam"
submit: yield to another's wish or opinion; "The government deferred to the military pressure"

In this case, let the other team pick, you pick in the second half. Probably to receive, unless your O is wiped from your crushing D constantly handing them the ball back. That's the definition of the Pat's in 08.

 

[JSn]

defer
2 [dɪ'fɜ:] verbo intransitivo to defer to sb/sthg, hacer algo en deferencia a alguien/algo

Laugh Out Loud.

 

[Den-in-NH]

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.

 

[JSn]

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.

Nah, there's always the outside chance some crack infested coach would choose to kick after being handed the coin toss, lol.

 

[Mix]

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.

If a team wins the toss and chooses to kick in the first half the team that lost has the choice of kicking/receiving in the second half. So by choosing to kick first you would give the other team that choice in the second half and end up kicking again.

Now because you can defer you can make sure you receive to open the second half.

 

[jmt57]

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.

 

[spacecrime]

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.

Now do you understand how deferring is different from choosing to kick?

 

[spacecrime]

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.

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.

By giving the OPTION of deferring, you can still choose to receive if you win the coin toss to start OT.

Why is everyone having such a hard time understanding this rule? Doesn't anyone watch college football?

 

[upstater1]

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."

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.

 

[Sivy]

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.

man, I must be stupid, I always thought this was the rule.

 

[SVN]

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.

i doubt BB would say he would defer 100% of the times based just on psychological thinking...

 

[patchick]

Unless I'm wrong, it has nothing to do with a statistical advantage.

Whether it's about half-time adjustments, psychology or what have you, there is a statistical advantage. Receiving in the 2nd half correlates with victory. It's a small effect, but statistically significant IIRC.

 

[BadMoFo]

defer
2 [dɪ'fɜ:] verbo intransitivo to defer to sb/sthg, hacer algo en deferencia a alguien/algo

Whatever u say crackie

 

[NovaScotiaPatsFan]

I always loved it when we lost the toss as referenced by this post of mine from January of 2007

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showpost.php?p=296946&postcount=11

I want the ball first in the 2nd half to either give us a chance to get back in the game if we're down or increase our lead if we're up. Also if possible I want the wind at our back in the 4th quarter.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

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.

Upon further review, I believe you are correct.