Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Kickoff or Receive?


mbarbour21

Recommended Posts

Defer

We don't have to score on our first possession to have a chance and getting the ball to start the 2nd half (with or without having two offensive possessions back to back without the opponent getting a chance to answer) is too good.  You can really break the back of a team with that first 2nd half possession...or you can energize your own team if the first half went wonky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kick and defer to the second half.  The defense will be completely fired up so let them set the tone and steamroll Denver to a quick three and out.  Plus, we seem to play better clock management at the end of the first half when we know we will get the ball after halftime.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ShutDwn said:

There's no advantage to receiving. 

 

By the way, you never choose to kick, you defer the choice to receive or to kickoff to the 2nd half. 

The Tar Heels chose to kick once and due to the rules did not get to receive a kick to start either half.

Weirdest damn thing i ever saw on a football field rule wise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • https://www.yahoo.com/sports/article/versatile-2nd-db-named-panthers-154026075.html Smith-Wade's ability to play corner, nickel and safety makes him valuable to a young defense trying to rebuild after finishing last in the NFL a year ago. "Chau took advantage of an opportunity,'' coach Dave Canales said. "He made tackles. He had an opportunity on an interception, and he made it.'' Our defense has got to come alive for us to have a chance of winning our Division!
    • lol, that second part is quite literally one of the dumbest things ever. Having or not having guaranteed contracts has absolutely nothing to do with how much these billionaires have to pay.  Because there is a hard cap and a minimum cap spend requirement, and teams either use their cap or roll it over to use it all the next year, so the owners have to pay the same amount of money in the end no matter what. Having fully guaranteed contracts in the NFL would only hurt salary cap management, and thus would end up screwing over the team and its fan base when teams kiss on signings as they take up cap room that is needed to improve the roster. Look at the Browns with Watson, they gave him the fully guaranteed deal and all it’s doing is sucking up massive cap space now.  If they hadn’t done that, the owner would still be paying the same amount of money each year as that cap space would still be used elsewhere. If you want to argue for fully guaranteed contracts because the players deserve it, that’s an entirely different argument and a fair one to discuss.  But anyone against fully guaranteed deals isn’t doing it to argue for the billionaire owners.
×
×
  • Create New...