An effort to put radios in the helmets of defensive players fell two votes short of passage a year ago. If those two additional votes had been obtained, we might never have heard the word “Spygate.”
Because if as of Week One of the 2007 season every team had a defensive player on the field with a radio receiver in his helmet, there would have been no need for teams to make signals to defensive players, and thus there would have been no reason for the New England Patriots to videotape the efforts of the New York Jets to do so.
And if there had never been a “Spygate,” there likely wouldn’t have been a “Spygate II,” because the media wouldn’t have had the occasion to chase former Patriots video employees, like Matt Walsh, for more dirt about the Patriots and allegations of cheating.
Though any tweaking of the rule likely wouldn’t have been necessary to secure the two additional votes this time around, the Competition Committee has addressed concerns regarding the logistics of the rule. Under the last proposal, only one player could have the radio in his helmet. Under the current proposal, two defensive players can have the radio, although only one of the radio-wired helmets can be on the field at a time.
To implement the rule, teams might pick two players who never are on the field at the same time, such as a linebacker who exits in passing situations and the third corner who takes his place. Alternatively, the teams will need to have two helmets for one or both of the players who are radio-eligible, and they’ll need to keep track of which guy is wearing the wired hat at any given time.
It might make even more sense to put the radio in the helmets of one key player on defense who is on the field for every play, and in the helmet of his backup. This would protect against the problems that could arise when the starter with the radio helmet gets hurt.
Regardless of how a team handles it, there will definitely be a huge problem if the both of the players with the radio receivers in their helmets get injured. Thus, teams will need to be ready to go back to hand signals in the event that the two players get hurt.
Sure, it’s unlikely. But every team will need to be prepared for the worst-case scenario.
Meanwhile, the zebras likely will be aided by the proliferation of the dreadful glowing green dot, which showed up last year as a way to ensure that only one player on offense had the radio in his helmet. As a result, Seahawks backup quarterback Seneca Wallace had a separate helmet that he used when entering the game as a wideout.
It’s a lot easier, however, to track the presence of the green dot on offense, because the quarterback lines up in only one spot. On defense, it could be a bit for challenging, and we’ve got a feeling that some teams might not want to adopt this rule because they simply don’t want to worry about the inevitable headaches that the rule will create when applied.
_2.gif)






March 29th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Am I the only one was tying to figure out which NFL player Florio had nicknamed “Radio” after reading the headline?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 29th, 2008 at 11:50 am
I wonder if radio is ready for defense. It is one thing to put a radio in a helmet that barely gets touch but how will a radio hold up an entire game of banging?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 29th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Why not allow more defensive people to have radios, but have them tuned to different frequencies. Then some egghead in a booth with a scanner can make sure only one frequency is being used at a time. Don’t they already monitor QB’s helmets to make sure they shut off at a certain point before the play starts?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 29th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
the problem with having more and more players with radios in their helmets is that there become more and more opportunities to exploit the signals. unless the nfl is going to pony up for freq-hopping encrypted radios or something, you can intercept the communication with an antenna you can build from stereo wire and a pringles can.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 29th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Here’s a thought: For the first half of the game use the radio on third downs and use hand signals for first and second downs..third quarter all radio and fourth quarter mix’em up again…its a gameplan within the gameplan of how the teams can keep the other team from listening to radio frequency via a Pringles can and/or being able to videotape. Its perfect!! (hey since we’re all brainstorming…I figured why not put this out there?)
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 29th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
haha, and while you’re using the hand signals, be sending out fake stuff on the radios and vice versa!
the nfl will probably be offering us all kinds of money for our ideas
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 29th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
correct me if i’m wrong, but radio communication would be optional, right?
for those fogey teams that would be technophobes, they could opt out. for instance,
ralph wilson’s bills. strom thurmond used to call a microphone, “the machine”.
anyway, modern radio communication is digital, and can be easily encoded to avoid
stealing signals. price isn’t prohibitive.
for those rare situations when the defensive captain is off the field, the substitutes
come in with the play already called, so that’s not a problem either.
durability is a concern, though. those things might not survive more than a few
violent hits.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 29th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
The Patriots have voted against this proposal in the past. Bill Belichick has expressed concerns about the logistics and it seems like they are trying to address it.
Is it too cost prohibitive to put a radio in every helmet? What is the big deal if every offensive player gets the play call and not the QB? It would also alleviate the problems on the defensive side of the ball.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 29th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
The answer is No!!
I’ve heard Derrick Brooks comment on this very same question and his answer was no. All three defensive coaches are making their individual calls to the field. He said that you would need 3 helmets to make it work.
Allowing all defensive players radio helmets is the only way to make it work and the logistics of that is silly at best.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 29th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Cant we just go back to a simpler time. You know, when teams just stole defensives signals? Seriously though - this league is as popular as it is because these committees have skewed the rules in favor of the offense. Defensive football equals low ratings - if you dont believe me check the ratings for the steelers / dolphins game last year. I cant help but think this is going to make some games agonizing to watch. Hope im wrong.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 29th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Seriously, could Florio be any more of a Patriots*** apologist?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 31st, 2008 at 7:04 am
This has been a debate since QBs got radios in their helmets. Coincidentally, the NFL changed some rules to stimulate offensive production (thanks Polian). If Peyton breaking the record and Brady eclipsing it this year don’t emphasize it enough, this is a clear advantage for the offense, especially when playing on the road. This has been up for debate before and should pass this time around. The Defense deserves a radio to make it just as easy to call plays. And one is sufficient to get the DL, LB and DB organized. Three radios would be ridiculous.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 31st, 2008 at 7:43 am
i would say the offense/defense imbalance has been more because the league keeps trying to hamstring defenses with rules favoring the offense than because the QB has a radio
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 31st, 2008 at 8:26 am
The offense had had an advantage because of their helmet radio all these years!! It’s about time the defense had one. Hail!
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated