More and more media outlets are locking onto the report that the New England Patriots’ habit of videotaping defensive coaching signals also included at least one instance of videotaping of offensive coaching signals.

Bob Glauber of Newsday is the most recent writer to “confirm” this practice, pointing to a game between the Pats and the Dolphins from 2001. 

But what of the reality that offensive coaching signals became unnecessary once the quarterbacks were equipped with radio receivers in their helmets?  Why isn’t the media addressing this fairly significant distinction between NFL offenses and NFL defenses?

We’re not saying that the tapes Walsh turned over don’t include evidence of the taping of offensive coaching signals.  But given that there was (and is) no reason for teams to use offensive coaching signals, there is (and was) no reason to believe that a tape of offensive coaching signals exists.  And our point is that someone in the media should at least mention the fact that, on the surface, the notion that offensive signals were videotaped seems odd, given the use of the radio receivers.

But maybe there are folks in the press who are disappointed by the fact that, like Al Capone’s vault 22 years ago, the videotapes turned over by Matt Walsh don’t contain anything good — like, for example, images of the Rams’ walk-through practice prior to Super Bowl XXXVI.  And maybe those same folks hope to fill that void by rushing to judgment on something that technically is beyond the scope of the activities for which the Pats previously have been punished.

So maybe that’s why some reporters aren’t letting concepts like, you know, reality and common sense get in the way on this one.