Thoughts on deferring

[patchick]

In fairness, some bad teams need the boost of a score or being ahead at least for a few minutes a game. Also, teams that are built to rush the passer do better when playing with a lead, so they would do well to elect to receive.

Very possible...but I'd like to see the stats.

 

[jmt57]

It is possible the rule was the way it is now 25 years ago, got changed and now changed back again. Cause I vaguely remember the rule being as it is now, when I was a kid.

Yeah, I seem to remeber it being that way when I was a kid as well. I thought back then one team selected to kick or receive, the other picked which end to defend, and both were reversed for the second half. It was if there was no way a team could kick to begin both halves, but that must have changed at some point over the years.

I also vaguely remember an AFL playoff game where the wind was fairly strong, and the player who went out for the coin toss in overtime had instructions to have the wind at his back (rather than receive the ball.) But instead of asking for the direction, he simply told the ref his team would kick off. The other team of course took the wind at their back, but the team managed to win anyways in spite of his screw up.

 

[buile]

Me, I like deferrment. However, with Brady and the team's great 1st possession performance last year, I'd like to get the ball first and score. With Cassel, I like the feeling of deferrment to allow offensive half-time adjustments to be put into play fresh and immediate. Set a new tone and pace based on how the other team plays us.