Could a return to low-tech play-calling work these days? (1 Viewer)

[Doug B]

See the following snippet about Paul Brown:

Brown gained a reputation as an innovator during his time in Cleveland. He was the first to use intelligence tests to judge players, establish a film library, instruct players in a classroom setting, attempt to use a radio transmitter to communicate with players on the field, and install face masks on helmets. Another innovation was the use of "messenger guards" to relay plays from the sidelines (after the radio proved problematic due to the technology then available). The offense directed by Graham was the predecessor of the West Coast offense made famous by Bill Walsh, a protege of Brown.

In light of the apparent ability of technology to help steal signs, could a return to low-tech play-calling work in the modern NFL? The trick, I guess, is to have enough depth so that you got virutally interchangeable parts at at least one of the duplicated positions in an offensive set such as WR, OG, or OT. The same could be done with defense, perhaps with LBs.Also, could a workable 21st-century offense be run by a quarterback calling their own plays, the way that was so common from the dawn of pro football through 1970s? Could the play calls be stripped down somehow to make this more feasible?

 

[Doug B]

:bump:

 

[roadkill1292]

For some time now I've thought that it would be a better game if coaches weren't allowed on the sidelines at all. Prep 'em during the week and then let the players play. Make their own calls, own adjustments and own decisions. We'd find out who the smart guys and leaders were then. Plus, it would introduce a massive chunk of anarchy, chaos and error-making that can't help but make things so much more interesting. It's too much like a computer game out there now.

 

[Doug B]

For some time now I've thought that it would be a better game if coaches weren't allowed on the sidelines at all. Prep 'em during the week and then let the players play. Make their own calls, own adjustments and own decisions. We'd find out who the smart guys and leaders were then. Plus, it would introduce a massive chunk of anarchy, chaos and error-making that can't help but make things so much more interesting. It's too much like a computer game out there now.

I like that idea a lot, actually. Good thinking.

 

[maxwell1295]

From a defense standpoint, hurry-up offenses would take away the ability to send plays in by messenger...they don't even have enough time to make substitutions.

 

[CGRdrJoe]

why not just have a guy squat on the sideline and give fingers signals to the qb and mlb? I know I've seen this work somewhere else before but I can't remember where.

 

[ELI2TYREE]

I have advocated for the removal of all technological aids from the sidelines and the doing away with coaches in the booth in various forums for a while. I think if you keep the game pure by disallowing any innovation to gain an advantage, then the truly great players and coaches will shine through.

We need to make the coaches on the sidelines watch the game from the sidelines and try to counter the other teams' coaches from what they see on the field before them. The photo and video aids, the calls to the Booth, are all nonsense and need to be removed from the game permanently.

Yes, let's go back to the "stone age" of football. Discard the array of bells and whistles that have cluttered the game.

 

[ELI2TYREE]

why not just have a guy squat on the sideline and give fingers signals to the qb and mlb? I know I've seen this work somewhere else before but I can't remember where.

exactly - if deaf people can communicate via sign language, there is no reason coaches and players can't build their own language each and every week.

 

[Doug B]

why not just have a guy squat on the sideline and give fingers signals to the qb and mlb? I know I've seen this work somewhere else before but I can't remember where.

I thought about putting the signaller in some kind of black booth where the signals are only visible from a specific angle. No one on the same sideline as the signaller could see the signals.

 

[Doug B]

From a defense standpoint, hurry-up offenses would take away the ability to send plays in by messenger...they don't even have enough time to make substitutions.

This is true. But it's a good case for the MLB, SS, or someone to be able to make defensive calls on the fly without input from the coaches.

 

[Doug B]

exactly - if deaf people can communicate via sign language, there is no reason coaches and players can't build their own language each and every week.

You'd have to do it every quarter -- maybe even every drive -- to avoid the code being broken during a game.

 

[ELI2TYREE]

exactly - if deaf people can communicate via sign language, there is no reason coaches and players can't build their own language each and every week.

You'd have to do it every quarter -- maybe even every drive -- to avoid the code being broken during a game.

not really, if you hide it well enough like a catcher, and have people surrounding the signaller, you should be able to get away with it. MAybe have some changes for the 2nd half just in case...

 

[pettifogger]

This is an interesting topic. During the Colts-Saints game I was talking with friends about how Peyton Manning's frequent use of audibles prevents the defense from calling plays. It was obvious when he scanned the field and saw Davis, the former Colts CB now with NO (whom Manning had practiced against for years) isolated on one side with the free safety on the other side. He threw three TD passes on those audibles.

You would think that other teams would see that the Colts have the league's best offense and learn that letting your QB essentially call the plays (which Manning does a good share of the time) is a good thing.

One thing I hate to see in baseball is managers calling pitches from the dugout. Whenever I see a young catcher looking over for signs from the dugout I figure the team doesn't think it has a major league catcher or the manager is an egomaniac who doesn't trust his own players to make decisions.

It's the same with QBs. If you don't let them call their own plays they won't develop the ability to do so. If you don't think they can develop the skill then you should question why they have the job.

 

[Doug B]

I'm in total agreement, pettitfogger. What happened to calling your own plays on the field?

 

[maxwell1295]

I'd have TWO people sending in signals, but only one of them would be calling in the real play...

 

[BaBastage]

I'd have TWO people sending in signals, but only one of them would be calling in the real play...

My thoughts exactly. Have several people making calls, and some sort of system to determine who would have the 'real' call. (1st down = person A, 2nd Down person B, etc, mix it up by quarter, yards-to-go, field position, etc.).Admittedly the danger would be players on the field not following the system properly and executing a different play than their teammates....