Radio in Helmet for Defenses Approved

[onlydarksets]

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.

[lwiedy]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

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.

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.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by lwiedy

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.

I'm not sure what you think I said.

As for your point, sure there is a difference for some teams, 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".

[lwiedy]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

I'm not sure what you think I said.

As for your point, sure there is a difference for some teams, 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".

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.

[Dirtbag59]

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.

[lwiedy]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

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.

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.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by lwiedy

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.

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.