Can you hear me now?

[ActingWild]

I didn't even know this one was out there. Looks like defenses are going to get some help.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80783ca4&template=with-video&confirm=true

Adoption of defensive communication passes by one vote

Associated Press

PALM BEACH, Fla. -- Taking another technological step forward, league owners approved a communication device for defenses on Tuesday at the NFL Annual Meeting.

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

 

[dreamcastrocks]

I say, why not?

 

[Crazy Canuck]

Thank you, Coach Belichek!

 

[BigShtank]

It's about freaking time. I had heard they were going to vote on it, but didn't think it'd pass. It's ridiculous that defenses are weakened when the QB is getting play calls during a 2 minute offense but the defense has to look at the sidelines.

There is no reason why this shouldn't have been a 31-1 vote with Belicheat being the only detractor.

 

[CardLogic]

As with the offense, only one player on the field may be wearing the headset.
The most logical choice of a player to wear it is a LB, since that position is typically the play-caller on defense.

Another criteria is designating a player that is going to be on the field for each defensive snap, or as close to it as possible, a three-down defensive player.

Who will the Cardinals designate to wear the headset helmet? Will it be Gerald Hayes, whom I believe is the Cardinals current defensive play-caller, or will it be Karlos Dansby, or perhaps Adrian Wilson, whom are more likely to be on the field in both run and pass formations?

 

[joeshmo]

As with the offense, only one player on the field may be wearing the headset.
The most logical choice of a player to wear it is a LB, since that position is typically the play-caller on defense.

Another criteria is designating a player that is going to be on the field for each defensive snap, or as close to it as possible, a three-down defensive player.

Who will the Cardinals designate to wear the headset helmet? Will it be Gerald Hayes, whom I believe is the Cardinals current defensive play-caller, or will it be Karlos Dansby, or perhaps Adrian Wilson, whom are more likely to be on the field in both run and pass formations?

If my understanding is correct, two defensive players will have the headset but only one at a time can actually have it on. They did that becuase in todays defenses there isnt a defender in the league that plays in every single down on defense.

Also a side note. This takes away from anyone trying to steal signals. Guess who was one of the teams that voted against this last year. Do I really have to tell you who that team was.

 

[CardLogic]

If my understanding is correct, two defensive players will have the headset but only one at a time can actually have it on. They did that becuase in todays defenses there isnt a defender in the league that plays in every single down on defense.

From the article:

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

One player with the device on the field! I guess the designated back-up could have two different helmets one wired, one without.

 

[Darth Llama]

So instead of actually doing something to the Patriots, or heaven for bid, actually punishing them, we just change the rules to adapt to their dishonesty. Lovely.

Don't get me wrong, I like the change, if Offense can have one, Defense should too, I have no issue with that. What I don't care for is the way the League is just adapting to the problem instead of actually correcting it.

 

[Skkorpion]

Don't like it because it might very well negate some of the advantages of a no-huddle hurry-up offense. The coach in the sky can see a lot more than the defensive captain on the field.

 

[BigRedRage]

So instead of actually doing something to the Patriots, or heaven for bid, actually punishing them, we just change the rules to adapt to their dishonesty. Lovely.

Don't get me wrong, I like the change, if Offense can have one, Defense should too, I have no issue with that. What I don't care for is the way the League is just adapting to the problem instead of actually correcting it.

Money and draft picks was the punishment, plus the redicule they have gone through.

 

[BigRedRage]

Don't like it because it might very well negate some of the advantages of a no-huddle hurry-up offense. The coach in the sky can see a lot more than the defensive captain on the field.

So? ....why should the offense have a playcalling advantage?

 

[earthsci]

So instead of actually doing something to the Patriots, or heaven for bid, actually punishing them, we just change the rules to adapt to their dishonesty.

Loss of first round pick, $500,000 fine for Head Coach, $250,000 fine for team. Just in case you missed that.

 

[earthsci]

So? ....why should the offense have a playcalling advantage?

Co-sign. The coach in the sky can see a lot more than the QB on the field.

 

[WisconsinCard]

Loss of first round pick, $500,000 fine for Head Coach, $250,000 fine for team. Just in case you missed that.

But they re-couped that cash by not having to pay a first round draft choice. I am sure they would have rather had their pick, but the fines just didn't amount to squat IMHO.

 

[Darth Llama]

Loss of first round pick, $500,000 fine for Head Coach, $250,000 fine for team. Just in case you missed that.

Sorry, I should clarify. I am aware that they were fined and lost the pick.

First of all, the team had 2 picks in the 1st, they took away their worst one, the last overall pick in that round. And sorry, but anyone who thinks Billicheat really paid that money out of his own pocket has a screw loose. I'm aware that a "punishment" was handed down, but that punishment was barely more then a slap on the wrist and we all know it. Let's not pretend the league cracked down on the Pats, Billicheat should have been fired for what he did and the team should have lost the best pick in the 1st.

Regardless of rather or not the punishment is fair, I'm against changing the rules of the entire league to compensate. I'm a fan of just punishing the guilty party directly and being done with it.

 

[BigRedRage]

Sorry, I should clarify. I am aware that they were fined and lost the pick.

First of all, the team had 2 picks in the 1st, they took away their worst one, the last overall pick in that round. And sorry, but anyone who thinks Billicheat really paid that money out of his own pocket has a screw loose. I'm aware that a "punishment" was handed down, but that punishment was barely more then a slap on the wrist and we all know it. Let's not pretend the league cracked down on the Pats, Billicheat should have been fired for what he did and the team should have lost the best pick in the 1st.

Regardless of rather or not the punishment is fair, I'm against changing the rules of the entire league to compensate. I'm a fan of just punishing the guilty party directly and being done with it.

Taping signals is minor cheating, just like the consequence was minor. Set your resentment aside and look at the situation. It would be a joke if the league forced a team to fire its manager.