Originally Posted by FellowNFLscribe

[W]as the crux of the story right or wrong -- that the Patriots got information from the Rams' walkthrough? No it wasn't. Everything else is just smoked-filled coffee house crap. And conveniently overlooked by Patriots fans desperate to clear their team's name.

Originally Posted by BelichickFan (Post 895496)

Agreed. Of course, Felgie is Felgie and I've always felt Curran is a little overated around here; a solid local guy but over his head nationally.

Originally Posted by Rob0729 (Post 895523)

I really like Curran although I don't think he is much of national report. He always have been a straight shooter, but his defense of Tomase seems really disingenious.

Originally Posted by bradmahn (Post 895504)

I had the same thought earlier and was going to post this in the Tomase apology thread but my internet connection was lost. Here it is:

I just read the live blog on Scott's Shots from Boston Sports Media Watch and saw something that I absolutely have to vent regarding this situation.

Here's the link if you want to read it for yourself.

I've seen some apologists (as have you, if you've heard Felger make this point) that say Tomase merely overstated what the Patriots did:

Felger said if you replaced the verb 'taped' with 'monitored' it makes Tomase's story okay. Beyond the fact that both of those words imply that there was intent on the part of the Patriots, it changes the very fabric of what actually occurred. Matt Walsh, on the sidelines, setting up video equipment and happening to see something is not against the rules - there is nothing dishonest or unfair about that situation when the Rams could have and should have requested his dismissal from the site (and the NFL has stated as much). There is a huge difference between what Tomase reported and what the actual circumstances were when one situation (taping) would have warranted more punishment from the NFL and the actual reality of the situation means nothing. Tomase's article was about gathering information from the walkthrough illegally (the "crux," if you will), anything else means his article was wrong. Please don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Originally Posted by BSR (Post 895541)

Agreed. They make it seem like it is only one little word but that one little word has a boat load of meaning. Its akin to saying "Recording signals via binoculars is legal" but if we change "binoculars" to "video tape" the sentence is still true. But it is not.

"A camerman videotaping the Rams walkthrough is illegal" True.

"A camerman monitoring the Rams walkthrough is illegal" NOT True.

It is NOT about changing one word.