Radio in D-Captain's helmet

[PatsFanInVa]

I read today that one rules change being discussed is to have at least 1 defensive player get the radio in the helmet that a QB gets on offense.

As of today, my guess would be that it would be Bruschi this season who gets to hear Belichick and Pees saying "Use the Force, Tedy" in their best obiwan kenobi voices.

My question is this: assuming this rule goes through, is it good or bad for the Pats? On the one hand you can say the kind of flexible, game-by-game changes the Pats put in would benefit greatly from the innovation. There is a kind of "backstop" for the importance of intense practice and smart players. On the other hand, you can say we went through all the trouble to get the smart, versatile players, learn to practice and game plan efficiently and thoroughly, and suddenly all you need is a "great communicator" to impinge on our range of results with less mentally evolved players.

I lean toward the former analysis, i.e., that it's good for us, moreso than for the average team.

Opinions?

PFnV

 

[pats1]

This rule change was voted down last season.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Thought I read that it was back under discussion this season? Unless of course this is the "never mind" post of the year.

 

[SeanBruschi54]

Would be a major benefit to many teams.

 

[ChoWZa]

The pats would use it as well as any other team in the league but I don't think they need it. The D gave up a franchise low points last season.

It would only give defenses a slight bonus(i don't want to call it an advantage) vs our offense.

I vote no.

 

[Isaac]

As long as they don't put radios in the OT's helmets to hear the snap count---that would be a true shame.

I can appreciate the defender's getting one helmet since the QB gets it. The problem is though that as I recall only one defender gets one, and if he leaves the field there is no replacement (even by injury). That seems silly, make it one at a time, but that could be a nightmare to oversee and might require multiple helmets for players, perhaps even switching helmets constantly. Seems that the logistics might kill this thing.

 

[Pats726]

I agree..it MAY be a logostical nightmare...which is WHY I say NO!!
there is no real Defensive equal to the QB...

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I think the first response here got it right... I either mis-read the USA Today article, or they reported last year as this year... none of the other sites I'm reading show up the D-radio suggestion for this year.

Uh, nevermind.

 

[groundgame]

One of the other changes being discussed is the opening kickoff in overtime to be from the 35 yard line versus the 30, in order to reduce the advantage of the 1st team in possession of the ball winning in OT.

 

[signbabybrady]

One of the other changes being discussed is the opening kickoff in overtime to be from the 35 yard line versus the 30, in order to reduce the advantage of the 1st team in possession of the ball winning in OT.

I don't like that idea. I dont think there is an advantage either way. One team gets the ball first and if the other plays good ST than they get field position to start. I remember a sta from 5-10 years a go where the team that got the ball first only won like 53% of the time. its football play some de and you still can win.

 

[zoostation]

They'll be playin Snoop Doggie in Shawne Merrimans headset

 

[brdmaverick]

I don't like the defensive radio in the helmet idea as I think it would be less of an advantage for our team as opposed to others, which would actually make it a disadvantage for us.


I would even vote down the idea without considering the specific implications to the Patriots. I just think it is a bad idea in general.

 

[PatsMyBoyz!]

They'll be playin Snoop Doggie in Shawne Merrimans headset

......

 

[Gumby]

Has anybody ever tried to bring a scanner to a game so they could figure out the frequency of the Patriots and the opposing teams' channel. Then listen in and hear the play calling the QBs hear?


Not that I would do anything like that and then bring a transmitter to jam the other team's signal at key moments or anything ; just wondering out loud. ......hmmmmmmmmm

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I don't like that idea. I dont think there is an advantage either way. One team gets the ball first and if the other plays good ST than they get field position to start. I remember a sta from 5-10 years a go where the team that got the ball first only won like 53% of the time. its football play some de and you still can win.

62% of the time, last year:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-ownersside032207&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Seems like they're worried the standard kickoff from the 30, which is new, is carrying over into overtime to create this advantage, so they're putting it at the 35 for OT to try to restore some basic fairness since OT is sudden death. Kicking off from the 30 is supposed to make nice high-scoring games in general, something the league digs. But then you have a situation where this seriously skews your chances based on the coin flip, in over time.

Still, point well taken - play some D and you can still win. You just have the odds stacked against you.

PFnV

 

[jbb9s]

Has anybody ever tried to bring a scanner to a game so they could figure out the frequency of the Patriots and the opposing teams' channel. Then listen in and hear the play calling the QBs hear?


Not that I would do anything like that and then bring a transmitter to jam the other team's signal at key moments or anything ; just wondering out loud. ......hmmmmmmmmm

Actually I thought of this too. It wouldn't be that hard to patch into the communications.....and I wouldn't put this beyond teams. Mike Shanahan is on record as saying he knows of specific games in which teams had lip readers employed to catch the offensive coordinators play call. That is why the whole play sheet in fron of the mouth got started. If that is true, this scenario can't be that dillusional.

 

[DarrylS]

From BB's point of view:

http://www.boston.com/sports/footba...2007/03/25/getting_in_the_coachs_head/?page=2

On having communication with a defensive player through a helmet headset, like the quarterback. "That was something brought up when the rule was initially proposed for the quarterback, giving the defense a way to communicate. The problem as I see it is that, on defense, it is an entirely different situation. When you have a backup quarterback, it's the same communication; fundamentally it's not going to change the way the game is played today.

"But defensively, if I'm a player and I have the headset, and now I'm out as part of a situational substitution or if I get hurt, what happens? We know that on offense, if the quarterback gets hurt, the backup QB comes in and will have that communication. But defensively, the team would then have no communication. And I think it's hard to have one guy in on every play.

"I wouldn't be in favor of this. There is an inequity in the rule and you don't know when that inequity will come. I also think we need to be careful about the concept of going to a 'Star Wars' mentality. I'm not so crazy about the coach-to-quarterback thing. Now this. That's why this wasn't passed in the first place, and was just an offensive thing, to help the offense get the play in, speed up the game, eliminate delay-of-game penalties, and make it easier for crowd noise. We've done that, but now this takes it to another level." Continued...

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I love that he referenced the "star wars mentality."

"Use the force, Tedy..."

PFnV

 

[A.C Vegas]

One of the other changes being discussed is the opening kickoff in overtime to be from the 35 yard line versus the 30, in order to reduce the advantage of the 1st team in possession of the ball winning in OT.

I think the NFl needs to Adbopt the college rule on OT except start and like the 50 or the oppenats 20 and not allow punting in OT.

But then again I am the guy that would love to see baseball game after like 14 innings or so go to a homerun durby finish.