Radio in Helmet for Defenses Approved
 

Zorn was a dissenting vote. I like it though. Who will wear the helmet for us? Fletcher?
The link is on NFL.com.

Re: Radio in Helmet for Defenses Approved
 

[url=http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80783ca4&template=with-video&confirm=true]Adoption of defensive communication passes by one vote[/url]

Interesting that a lot of WCO guys voted against it. Holmgren and his minions-Gruden, Reid, Zorn, McCarthy

Re: Radio in Helmet for Defenses Approved
 

Edit: You're too fast for me SS.

Re: Radio in Helmet for Defenses Approved
 

[QUOTE=Lady Brave;436497]Edit: You're too fast for me SS.[/QUOTE]

Sigh...never good to hear that from a Lady :(

Re: Radio in Helmet for Defenses Approved
 

[I]"One defensive player will wear a helmet similar to what the quarterback is allowed on offense. Should that player leave the game, a teammate can be designated to also have the device. But only one defender with the device can be on the field at a time"[/I]

This sound logistically difficult. Is the second device inactive until a league official activates and who is in charge of notifying that a change is being made? Lots more questions.

It would be hard to imagine that all of this has not been worked out to a "T", but then again wars have been started as the result of poor planning so.... (and I'm not comparing stealing signals with war, so please see the analogy for what it is, not what it isn't, thanks in advance).

Re: Radio in Helmet for Defenses Approved
 

If you can have it on offense, you should be allowed to have it on defense. I'm not crazy about the idea, since it puts the coaches almost directly on the field. Let the players play.

Re: Radio in Helmet for Defenses Approved
 

[QUOTE=onlydarksets;436512]If you can have it on offense, you should be allowed to have it on defense. I'm not crazy about the idea, since it puts the coaches almost directly on the field. Let the players play.[/QUOTE]

Do you not see the inherent differences between the two? Nobody is against doing it, but without the details regarding the administering of it, it is possibly fraught with complications that may make it impractical.

When was the last time a QB change was made without a timeout? Defensive players get nicked up or winded far more frequently and depending on the situation (2-minute drill), a defense could be sitting there with their fingers up their you-know-what while they wait for the second player’s device be activated.

Re: Radio in Helmet for Defenses Approved
 

[quote=lwiedy;436521]Do you not see the inherent differences between the two? Nobody is against doing it, but without the details regarding the administering of it, it is possibly fraught with complications that may make it impractical.

When was the last time a QB change was made without a timeout? Defensive players get nicked up or winded far more frequently and depending on the situation (2-minute drill), a defense could be sitting there with their fingers up their you-know-what while they wait for the second player’s device be activated.[/quote]
I'm not sure what you think I said.

As for your point, sure there is a difference [U]for some teams[/U], but is it a difference that amounts to much? Teams with a "coach on the field" (e.g., Lewis, Urlacher, etc.) won't sub that player without a TO - so it's the same as for the QB. For the other teams, they are already in that boat now. If they have any sense, they'll use this as a tool but not a crutch. Or, they'll use it to groom a player into a "coach on the field".

Re: Radio in Helmet for Defenses Approved
 

[QUOTE=onlydarksets;436524]I'm not sure what you think I said.

As for your point, sure [B]there is a difference [U]for some teams[/U], [/B]but is it a difference that amounts to much? Teams with a "coach on the field" (e.g., Lewis, Urlacher, etc.) won't sub that player without a TO - so it's the same as for the QB. For the other teams, they are already in that boat now. If they have any sense, they'll use this as a tool but not a crutch. [B]Or, they'll use it to groom a player into a "coach on the field[/B]".[/QUOTE]

I see what you are saying, but the purposed of this rule is not to “have a team develop a coach on the field” and as such that may be a by-product, it cannot be given any consideration in discussions whether it should be implemented.

We don’t know what the difference would be, so based on the information available to the public about it, there is not detail to judge how well it will work. If there are scenarios that call into question its effectiveness, they need to be addressed before it is adopted. Preseason will not be an accurate gauge because of the liberal substitutions.

Just half joking, with the way the league flies off the handle (signals, playoff seeding), maybe they should institute a 12-month moratorium on stuff like this and see how they feel about it with a slightly larger sampling to judge.

Re: Radio in Helmet for Defenses Approved
 

If this makes our team better then I'm all for it. Ironically this might serve as an equalizer for the defense since the league has been adament about the no-contact after 5 yards rule.

Plus I think I know why Gruden voted against it. I mean his offense requires the QB to be a master of linguistics while the defense bascially calls one play.

"Cover 2 Base"
"Cover 2 Nickel"
"Cover 2 Dime"
"Goalline"

So basically the rule has little benfit for a team like the Buc's.

Re: Radio in Helmet for Defenses Approved
 

[QUOTE=Dirtbag359;436540]If this makes our team better then I'm all for it. Ironically this might serve as an equalizer for the defense since the league has been adament about the no-contact after 5 yards rule.

Plus I think I know why Gruden voted against it. I mean his offense requires the QB to be a master of linguistics while the defense bascially calls one play.

"Cover 2 Base"
"Cover 2 Nickel"
"Cover 2 Dime"
"Goalline"

So basically the rule has little benfit for a team like the Buc's.[/QUOTE]

Good stuff about the Bucs, but if this makes our team better, they why did Zorn vote against it? Not necessarily taking issue with your statement, but it will be interesting to see if a reason (an HONEST reason) is given.

I also can't get past the West Coast connection with the dissenters.

Re: Radio in Helmet for Defenses Approved
 

[quote=lwiedy;436548]Good stuff about the Bucs, but if this makes our team better, they why did Zorn vote against it? Not necessarily taking issue with your statement, but it will be interesting to see if a reason (an HONEST reason) is given.

I also can't get past the West Coast connection with the dissenters.[/quote]


Personally I don't know enough about it to speculate but I think the Skins could benefit from this since this could give them the freedom to call a few more blitzes. Of course I'm a little worried considering the fact that Z-man felt it would help us more if we voted against it.

Re: Radio in Helmet for Defenses Approved
 

I think that dirtbag had part of it; that and your WCO guys are well, offensive minds. They don't want a defensive advantage for other teams.

Re: Radio in Helmet for Defenses Approved
 

Yeah I can't quite figure out the WCO connection with the dissenters, I just think it's odd that's all. Overall though this is a good rule, I'd imagine that for most teams the MLB would be the one to get the radio since he's basically the "qb" of the defense.

Re: Radio in Helmet for Defenses Approved
 

All this does for a defense is reduce the amount of hand signals used in a game. As far as the coach on the field theory is concerned; the communications device is cut off with 15 seconds remaining on the playclock.

When you think about it is not that much of an advantage unless your opponents are stealing signals. This potentially can really screw up a defense with poor personnell management skills. I look at it as more of a defensive disadvantage.