Fallout from Mike Vrabel-Dianna Russini Scandal (4/13 Hour 1)

Coming up today on PFT Live reacting to the latest developments in what continues to be the biggest story in the National Football League. The NFL wins but also sort of loses a collusion grievance filed by the NFLPA and Roger Goodell responds to Kyle Shanahan's concerns about traveling to the land down under for the season opener. PFT Live starts next. Monday, April 13, PFT Live 10 days away from the 2026 draft. Chris Sims, Mike Florio, NBCSN, Peacock, Series 6M85, Sky Sports Action whenever they decide to play the show assuming they do. I think they will but I don't know. Podcast perfect. Get your podcast. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. I assume you watched, did you watch like what do they call it? Wall to wall, hole to hole, green to green, tea to green, coverage of the Masters? I mean yesterday. You watched it all? Not at all. No. I mean really I just kind of vaguely pay attention for the first few days. I try to go about life and be a dad and a husband and whatever else. So and you know I'm still kind of, I'm close to the end of evaluating everybody and even in the draft but I'm, you know, I'm getting there. So that's really taking like my free time of the day. But Sunday, yeah, I made sure that I got it set up to where, okay, I can get down out in the barn. You know, we had a nice day, a nicer weekend here finally, at least to the low sixties where I was like, I'm going to sit down, you know, when that last group starts to tee off around two 30 ish, I'm going to make sure I kind of get there for that. Right. So I would say about two 45 started to settle in and then I watched it from there on out and it was, as always, it doesn't disappoint. A lot of fun to watch the last Sunday and at the Masters. Yeah, it got warm here again and usually there's one day a year when I realize that I should have turned on the air conditioning because it's much hotter up here in the attic above my garage than it needs to be. There's been like three or four days already this year where I've had to turn the air conditioning on because I've had to turn the heat back on and then turn the air conditioning on later and then the heat, like we've had 40 degrees swings from one day to the next in both directions. That's crazy. It's crazy, but it was 80 degrees here yesterday and I think it's going to be in the seventies all week. So spring is going to be, yeah, they're saying it's going to be some crazy, it's like weather event this year where I think a lot of the country and you're probably right on the borderline, it sounds like, to where the south and the Midwest could get crazy hot this year. They're kind of predicting that. I don't know what's going to happen, but yeah, it kills you when you have those discrepancies in the temperature. It's just, we did stay one way please because, you know, as you get up here and you get a nice day and then it goes back to, oh my gosh, it's 27 degrees out. It's just that adjustment is maybe the worst thing of all. You just go, I'd rather it stay cold the whole time. Don't tease me with these warm days and then go back to the cold because it is a lot of hard, a lot harder to adjust to. Since I'm basically a hermit and on de facto voluntary house arrest, I never know if it's nice out, if it's cold out. I only check the weather when I know I'm going to be going somewhere traveling or whatever. So I walk out the door and it's like, Hey, it's hot today or, Oh, it's cold today or Hey, it's raining today. So did you watch any of the masters yesterday at all? Did you check it out at all? No, not at all. All right. Well, I watched, I watched UFL yesterday. Wow. Okay. That sounds painful. I'd rather watch paint dry, but yeah. So, but, but with the Roy or Mackleroy called for with Rory Matt. No, really, I'm telling you, I would rather watch paint dry, but with Rory Mackleroy, it is an amazing psychological experiment. I mean, I got to give the guy credit at a place where he basically was a choke artist forever for almost 20 years. I mean, he would find ways to not play well or have the lead and choke it off. And then to win back to back, like you can't win this tournament and then you win it two times in a row. That's what I love about, you know, some of these individual sports like golf and tennis and all of that because there is the psychology element that I find fascinating there. I will say this about the UFL. It is exciting at times, but then there are times when I ask myself, why am I watching this? Why aren't I watching the paint dry? At one point yesterday, at one point yesterday, there was a moment that I've never seen before in a football game. A flag was thrown and it landed on the skycam. Wow. It was attached to the skycam. That's a good one. And the skycam is moving around with the yellow flag on it. So you haven't seen that in an NFL game. And I will say this also, two more observations. Number one, I was told last night that a rear of a UFL game was on NFL Network, which was curious, but it shows that NFL Network is now going to be a repository for ESPN programming because NFL Network is owned by ESPN. So they're going to have reared UFL games on NFL Network, even though there's no connection between the two leagues. And when I pointed that out to the PFT writers, Shereen Williams said, how in the world do you know that? What were you looking for to see that? So I had been told by someone that a UFL rear was on NFL Network and I went and checked for myself. But Chris, when it comes to officiating, and I know we're going to talk about the latest with the NFL and the NFL Referees Association later, when it comes to officiating, they do transparency right. You don't just only hear the communications from Dean Blandino to the referee when there's a review, you hear the conversations on the field between the officials. That is unprecedented stuff. And that is stuff the NFL needs to be looking at because quickest way to take off the tinfoil hats is to let people see the sausage being made. Yeah, I hear that. That would be interesting to see how that work. I mean, more transparency. I'm never against that aspect of it. So yeah, and maybe that's what we're going to have to have, especially with replacement refs this year, wherever this goes. But regardless, I think we've kind of all been wanting that transparency and wanting 345 or the powers to be to be involved just to get the, to get it right. That's all we care about as consumers and people that love the sport. One last point as well for the Columbus aviators yesterday, Ted Ginn Jr., the ninth overall pick in the 2007 draft. He did not coach because he had a DUI arrest on Saturday. Todd Haley, the former chief said coach took his place. And I know it's been 15 years since he was a head coach, but Todd Haley looks like he dressed up as Rob Ryan for Halloween now with the long flowing gray hair and the big beard and just enough of a belt that it make it look like he's trying to be as big as Rob Ryan, but he's woefully short. But it's like, that's Todd Haley. My God, what happened to Todd Haley, but he definitely has a Rob Ryan biker vibe right now. And again, I'm not criticizing the guy's appearance. He chooses to have long gray hair. Like he could get a haircut. Yeah. No, I don't think Todd Haley gives a crap. He doesn't give a crap. He's one of those. Did you see, well, we all get to an age where we don't give a crap anymore and life becomes much easier than, did you see there was a fake photo making the rounds over the weekend of Trevor Lawrence with a buzz cut? I did not. No, I did not. High and tight. He had a nice flow on top, but it was all high and tight. And first I saw it and I was like, is the over under 30 when he finally gets the haircut? Like how long in your life can you have the long hair unless you're, you know, a rock star. And even though, even then we see like Mick Jagger got a haircut eventually Keith Richards got a haircut eventually, but, but it was fake. That is incredible. Look at that. There's Rob Ryan. Yeah. I mean, there's Todd Haley. Yeah. You're right. That doesn't even, that doesn't even have it in its full glory because it's like pushed back on the right. So it's got a controlled over there. But that's impressive that he could grow his hair out to that point. I would have never known, would you have ever known that was Todd Haley? It would have put, I would have put it together eventually, but it would have taken a minute. That would have been like, wait, I know this guy. Who the hell is this? Hold on a second. Yep. But yeah, regardless, he was always an interesting, an interesting dude. And yeah, I mean, yes, I know we all get to the point where we don't give a crap. I think Todd Haley, he got there a little before the rest of us. That's, that's, that's the point with Todd Haley. No F's given. None. By Todd F. Haley, if his middle initial is Todd. All right. The biggest story in the NFL, six days later, continues to be, and this is something that at first, I don't think we really knew what to do or how to do it because it landed on a Tuesday night. There was so much there to unpack and there were so many developments that we were kind of waiting to see. I know I was like, where is this thing going to go? How big of a deal is it going to be? What's really there? What's true? What's not true? And what's true and what's not true doesn't really matter. What matters is what is happening. There are events and developments as relates to the photos that emerged out of the blue Tuesday night, New York Post reportedly pictures that were being shopped to TMZ for four figures. Now the post wouldn't say if they paid for the photos and if so, how much they paid. If it was four figures, it was a good investment because they, I assume they've gotten a lot of traffic, a lot of attention, sold a lot of advertising dollars out of this, this story. And as Michael Hawley said on Friday, well, as Michael Hawley said on Friday, look, it's still news. It's just different type of news. It's still news. There's clearly a market for this kind of stuff. There clearly is. No doubt. And I know from looking at our traffic in real time, it's interesting to many. And it's especially interesting where there are a lot of wrinkles and there are a lot of issues and there are developments still to develop. And you've got two different parties involved in this and the possibility that two different standards apply. We're going to talk about that coming up. But for now, the latest and this happened over the weekend, the athletic and they haven't used the word suspended. They've just said will not be reporting. Diana Roussini, who's been there since 2023, will not be reporting while the athletic investigates the photographs that were published by the New York Post six days ago. And remember in the immediate aftermath, everybody involved said nothing to see here, nothing to see here, nothing to see here. And the athletic came out via executive editor Steven Ginsburg with a very, very strong unequivocal statement of support. And by the end of the week, internal investigation will not be reporting. Contract expires in August. I've heard it may even expire earlier than that. And now we see what happens next. Now, before the news hit Friday afternoon of the will not be reporting, while the investigation happens, I had asked the PFT writers like is like, this is a perfect time for a bad news dump. We've seen it all the time. It's late Friday afternoon, like something going to happen. And who knows when the next development's going to occur. But that's where it stands right now. And finally, the athletic addressed this. There was an article from Katie Robertson. And it kind of becomes surreal, where the athletic is reporting on the athletic. Somebody from the athletic writes that according to a person familiar with the athletics investigation, the nature of Ms. Roussini's relationship with Mr. Rabel and her coverage are being reviewed, and she will not be reporting while the investigation is underway. So that was the biggest development of the weekend. And now we head into a new week and, hey, there's no hard reset. There's nothing else going on right now. Like this story has legs for six days. Totally. And that's a long time in the Goldfish Brain news cycle of the NFL. Yeah. Well, it's the biggest story in the NFL. I mean, you know, I wouldn't, I'd shoot you straight. These are things that I've been texting with about my friend, with my friends in the coaching world. Even their wives are involved in the conversation. Stay on target. Stay on target. Stay on target. What are you talking about? What are you talking about? Careful. I'm trying. I'm trying. I'm trying to, you ever see Star Wars? Yeah. Star Wars? Yeah. As Luke is going down the, I don't know. I'm not enough of a Star Wars nerd to know all the terms, but his, one of his, his wingman is telling him, stay on target. Right. Right. I'm just giving you, I don't, look, there's a lot there and there's only so much that is reported and known. And that's, I'm just, I'm just trying to help. All right. In Star Wars, do they tell that they have a called thing called shut up and just let the person talk about that? They tell me that and read that line back to you. I'm just trying to help you. All right. I'm just saying, I got it. It's just, it's the biggest story in the sport though. I mean, it's, it's, it's crossed. Yes. It's, it's something that we've texted with, with a lot of people like, wow, do you believe this? Do you believe that? Right? I mean, it's one of those types of stories. It's crossed over football. That's where it's become big. It went into mainstream media. That, that's where you know, all of a sudden it's like, wait, you know, people that don't really pay attention to football on a daily basis know about this story right now. So that's where it's become crazy. Right. And I think that's why we're talking about it and not only talking about it because it's a head coach who, of a team that just went to the Super Bowl and then Dianna Rossini, who's been really respected in the, in the business for a long, long time. And we see what's happening to her. And you know, oh no, is her job, you know, what's her job status? It's kind of influx as we sit here right now. And then there's also the conversation behind it about, you know, is there a double standard? So yeah, it's, it's become big, not only in the NFL, it's become big and cross over to mainstream media. And then it's become a little bit of like a culture clash a little bit because of the, what it's going down at the workplaces behind that. So that's where it's become a huge story, Mike. And I mean, yeah, you're right. I mean, it doesn't matter what I go on news wise, there's something there, side column, whatever, about Verrable and Rossini every day. It hasn't gone away to, to your point about how popular the story is. There was an article on the NBC news website fairly early on. I've seen on the Twitter timeline, People Magazine, right, with an article, I think maybe even us weekly with an article. So when it crosses over like that, it's something people are paying attention to. And it's the kind of thing that, that gets people's attention. It is rubbernecking to a certain extent, but it draws interest, it draws attention. And especially when there are developments that will continue and have continued. And the story has turned dramatically from the original nothing to see here vibe that was created by Verrable, by Rossini, and by the athletic. Yeah. The Verrable statement, we're going to get to him in a second. He says that any characterization otherwise is laughable. That, you know, it's all innocuous. Yeah, right. It's all nothing, nothing burger. He doesn't use that phrase, but the keyword was laughable. And when Holly and I were talking about on Friday, he said, Holly said, nobody's laughing. And that's reality. This isn't something that just went away quickly. They thought they could, I think, issue these statements with flat denials, and it would take the air out of the balloon. Yeah. It would all just go away. But the problem is the denials and the photos and look, I've been saying all along, hey, the photos are what they are. The denials are what they are. Yeah. Yeah. People with eyes and brains can look at the photos, look at the statements and come to their own conclusions as to whether there's any daylight between the two. And I think what happened was as the athletic, you know, the athletic may have accepted things that face value. Yeah, right. Initially. It seems that way. And then realized, wait a minute, wait a minute. This may not add up. Yeah, this is fishy. Where are these friends? Yeah. It was a girls trip. Where are all the photos with the girls hiking? Like, why is no one coming out and saying, oh, yeah, yeah. Yeah, we were, we were in Sedona. And we corroborate everything like there's been nothing, if anything, it's gone the other way. This very, very strong statement that was made immediately has just been falling. It feels like it's been falling apart. Again, I don't know. Yeah. You don't know. Yeah. Nobody knows. Yeah. All we know is there's a group of photos and there's statements and they came out and boom, everything went from there. Yeah. But we do know that the times has and they, it's just weird. Why don't you use the word suspended? What do you tiptoe around will not be reporting? I mean, suspension with pay, it's the same thing. Like, it's not like they're going to have her do something else. She's not going to be answering the phones when people call in with, you know, subscription requests or something like that. Like, she's been reassigned to some other jobs. She's a reporter. If you're a reporter and you're not reporting, you're suspended. Well, I'm going to ask you this. It is weird. Let me ask you this because I've been wondering this and I know this is kind of right up your alley, but yeah, I wondered how sensitive it is to suspend slash put somebody on leave, whatever, when it's personal life stuff, right? Where it's like, wait, this is, you know, so that's where I'm interested in how that works within the bylaws of company, right? You know, again, not judging. We don't know what they did, but they are there. The pictures don't look great for them. It certainly looks a little fishy, definitely. But at the same time as a company, you can't fire somebody or suspend them because something looks fishy a little bit. So that, that to me in itself is a interesting conversation I thought and I was kind of wanting to hear you because I know you're smart in these areas. We're moving toward the question of the double standard. Yeah, it may apply. Yeah. And the nature of the job of a reporter for the athletic, which is owned and operated by the New York Times. So the athletic reporters are subject to the very exacting New York Times editorial policy. The language from the athletic article over the weekend specifically says the editorial guidelines, guidelines, excuse me, quote, require that journalists with the company avoid any activities that pose a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest. So is not to call into question their credibility. That is a high bar. And the article actually links the New York Times editorial guidelines. And the guidelines themselves include language like this. Yeah. When reporting and writing stories, we do not have an agenda. And it is important that our readers understand that. If our readers question our adherence to that basic tenet of journalism, our credibility will be at stake to maintain the highest form of authority. We should avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest and reveal those sources or affiliations that may put into question our ability to be credible. So that is a really high bar. And that means that means the thing I mentioned Friday, my dad always told me whatever you're doing, whatever job you have, whatever organization you belong to, whatever school you're going to, there's a line as to what will get you in trouble. Figure out where the line is and stay the hell away from it. And at a place like the New York Times and the athletic, the requirement is the line is getting close to the line. Yeah, it's not even the line. The line is getting close to the line. And so I think that a reasonable person looks at those photos and asks, given the New York Times exacting editorial standards, have or has, because it doesn't apply to Varebel, it applies to Dana Rossini, has she failed to maintain the highest form of authority by avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest? Yeah, that would reveal those sources and affiliations that may put into question our ability to be credible. Right, right. And if they find evidence, yeah, you're right. And if they find evidence of foul play, of course, certainly that would even be, yeah, then you've definitely got too close to that line or stepped across the line as to what you're talking about. That's where I don't, it's unfortunate. I don't look at it as a double standard because it's just, it's two different jobs. I think that's what we're both saying. I didn't see, you know, what you said on Friday, but I did read your article and, you know, I feel like I'm probably falling in lines with what you wrote and what your thoughts are. You know, one, yeah, it's unfortunate. It stinks for her. Yes. But at the same time, yeah, your credibility comes into question with the types of relationships you might now have with other coaches or GMs or people in football. And within that, are you really giving us the real story? Or do you have some sort of a personal relationship behind the scenes and you're giving his fake story? So put out propaganda or whatever or vice versa. And that's the problem. And then on the other side of the story, it's Mike Vrable. Well, yeah, this is the distraction for the New England Patriots. I mean, listen, we saw Stefan Diggs open up his candy box last year and look at it and all that. And yeah, that was called, there was some, you know, a legalness to that. So that made it even more, but I would sit here and argue and go, that's not as distracting as what Mike Vrable situation is right now for the New England Patriots. That's more distracting. But at the same time, it doesn't affect or compromise his ability to coach and do X's and O's. And yeah, the players might, you know, gibber jabber about it in the locker room a little bit, but still it's not going to undermine his authority to do his job or do it at the highest level. And that's where the difference is. It's unfortunate. But yes, her job is predicated on, you know, being fair, having relationships that are professional and getting the most professional information. And this now makes you question whether you're getting that. And I understand that. And that's what stinks for her. And there's two issues at play here. There is the question of whether or not the very high bar created by the New York Times editorial guidelines was satisfied. And then there's the question of how did you handle it when the shit hit the fan? Sorry, London. Yeah, my own experience when I practiced law, and I did different things from both perspectives, employer and employee, as it relates to things that go haywire in the workplace. For internal investigations, the people who often got into the biggest trouble weren't the ones who did the thing that was being investigated. They were the ones who weren't truthful when it was time to tell the boss or the lawyer hired by the boss the truth about what happened. And that could be part of this too. And that's, again, trying very hard to focus on what we know and what's out there. But if the photos show something, the statement is this is nothing. And the investigation sparked by looking at the photos and comparing them to the statement. The investigation leads to the point where they think, well, maybe she wasn't being completely truthful with us about whether or not she was adhering to the exacting New York Times editorial guidelines of avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest based on these photos. That becomes a separate basis for potential adverse employment action, as they call it in the legal business. And when you throw in the fact that the contract runs until August and may actually be June, you just kick the can and move on. Yeah, it seems like it. Now, now, now, now, I don't think it's enough to just slow play until the contract expires, because as you can imagine, there are other reporters at the New York Times who are watching this and are pissed. Livid is what I was told is the opinion of some of the other New York Times reporters, because when you work for a company, I mean, look at the the hall of fame voters were upset because some of them didn't vote for Bill Belichick, because they think it makes them all look bad, even though they voted for Bill Belichick. The fact that not enough others did, it makes us all look bad. So if you're working for the New York Times, if you're working for the athletic, and this thing comes up, and this question comes up, and the athletic is getting mentioned constantly in a negative light, you're going to be upset. Totally. It makes us all look bad. Yeah. Yeah, I would agree. It does, you know, and especially in the time here where, of course, we know media is in question. We have a president where if you say something he doesn't like, he just says it's fake news. You're not a bad, you're not a bad media company. So yeah, it's a little bit of a unstable life right now as far as, you know, media in that conversation. And then to couple that, you know, what makes it worse and, you know, what you do and what do you do going forward? I mean, as we know, last week, she tried to kind of, Diana Rossini, get back on like, let me get back to business. Let me put a tweet out about football. But it became everything about the story again, to where nobody even wants to listen to about football right now. They just want to be funny or a jerk or whatever, but or slander and it's all about that. So it's overtaken anything professional about her right now. Nobody wants to listen to anything football that way. They just want to know more about the story. And yeah, the story looks, of course, fishy, certainly from their statements to what we see in the picture. And then on top of that, it seems like it was a hit job like we talked about last week. Like I don't know who the hell this photographer was, but this was not somebody with an iPhone. Somebody was sitting up there. It feels like to follow one of those two. That's what it feels like, certainly. So yeah, it's got a lot of tentacles this story. It's very interesting. I'm sure it's not interesting to Vrabel and Rossini, but to the rest of the country it is. And yeah, there's a lot to it here that, you know, crosses over a lot of different lines. Well, and, you know, the reality is these are the natural consequences of the behavior that was voluntarily engaged in whatever it was, whatever it was. And there's a responsibility shared by both parties to those photos. To ask yourself, how's this going to look if somebody sees it? Yeah, how's this going to look? Yeah. And was it just cluelessness that no one's ever going to see it? Was there a level of entitlement? Was it arrogance? I don't know. And I don't care, because the photos are what they are. You're right, though. How did they come to be? That's a hell of a question. Some people respond to that by saying it doesn't matter. They be. It doesn't matter how they came to be. They be. Yeah. And right, but there's an origin story to this whole thing that like somebody, like it's either accident or design. And it feels common sense would suggest that somebody knew that they were looking for something, which doesn't make it less likely that that something was going on. Yeah. Because somebody was looking for something. Exactly. So the photo, like somebody, somebody who had reason to believe right or wrong that something was going on finds photos that at the surface make it look like something's going on. It just the mere fact that someone was motivated to do it, unless the photos really are taken out of context and really are unfair. But where are the other people? That's, yeah, that's the problem there. The photos are what they are. Yeah. You can look at the statements and look at the photos and come to your own conclusions. Now, on the issue of the double standard, and you hit the nail on the head, it's a double standard because it's two different jobs. One job is premised upon behaving in a way that avoids even the appearance of a conflict of interest so that your media operation will not be compromised. Yeah. The integrity will not be undermined. It will not appear that you are playing favorites. It will not appear that you are doing anything untoward to get the information. It will appear at all times unbiased and unaffected by personal relationships that you have allowed to develop within the course of your employment. So that's not part of the job description for an NFL head coach. No. It's just not. But I will say this. Yeah. And this, look, the reality with any employment relationship, there's typically enough in the rulebook that if the employer really wants to make an issue out of something, it can. Yeah. We got this policy, this policy, this policy. Pick your policy. You've broken them all. Bye-bye. Yeah. If they really want to do it, they can. Yeah. Yeah. And the reality here is the payers don't want to do anything. Of course not. They got a coach who took them to the sewer bowl. Yeah. Let's keep our heads low and our mouths shut and let this move on. Because unlike his predecessor, who we realized during his first season, he can't be our long-term coach, we want this guy to be our long-term coach. And we don't want his time here to be derailed because of some photos that possibly implicate multiple league or team policies because we don't want them to be implicated. Yeah. Yeah. And this is where companies get into trouble. Let me give you a quick, I want to be concise here. When you get into a case of gender discrimination, there's an employee who claims that she was fired because of her gender, that she's not part of the boys club that manages the company, whatever company it may be. And they're going to deny it. Well, no, that had nothing to do with it. Here, she violated this policy, this policy, this policy, this policy. Whoa. The only way to expose, because nobody's going to get on the witness stand and say, well, you know, you're going to do whatever I did, like a few good men. No one's going to admit it. They're going to have their story that is baked in from the moment the company first started looking into the lawsuit months, if not years earlier. So they're going to deny it. No, no, no, it had nothing to do with the gender. So you know how you prove that it's bullshit? Sorry, London. You find all the other times that the guys did the same thing she did and nothing happened. Yeah. Yeah. That's the reality. No one's forcing these employers to apply their policies in a consistent way for some employees. It's no big deal for other employees. Oh, really? Oh, I've been looking for a way to get rid of that guy. Totally. So, so even though it's two different jobs, rabble benefits from the fact that the Patriots have no interest in scrutinizing it. Yes, they have no desire to make this a thing. Because some of the things I pointed out and I hope I remember them all, number one, and we don't know the facts, but will there be a fulsome and full investigation of him like there is of her? With her, it's more obvious. Goes to the heart of her job. She said it's nothing. The photos are what they are. It's easy to launch an investigation. You have to really want to launch an investigation for a variable. What if he's violating the tampering rule? What if he's deliberately weaponizing a relationship with a reporter to help manipulate a situation that results in the Patriots getting AJ Brown for less than they otherwise would? Deliberately utilizing that relationship to weaponize the media in a way that helps the Patriots. Is there a tampering violation? Now, we know the NFL rarely finds a tampering violation, but if somebody wanted to, if the league wanted to, if the Patriots wanted to, that it would be more the league than the Patriots, they could do that. But again, it's too obscure. Yeah, it's too obscure. It's too vague. And that could be happening even if there's not a sexual relationship or a woman or anything. You know what I mean. So that, you know. Well, but right, it's, but it's using some, regardless, you're right. It could be, you're right. It could be happening just someone's friendly. Hey, help me out here, Bill. I'll give you another story next time or something. I'll give you this. Yeah. Yeah. And those deals get made. Yeah. Do this for me and I'll give you our next big scoop. I've had that offered to me. Sure. Stop talking about that thing you're talking about and I'll give you our next big scoop. And I said, number one, no, thank you. Number two, thank you for letting me know that's how the others operate. So that's one way, that's one way that it can happen. Another way, and this gets murky, but I think it's something that needs to be taken seriously. And there's no reason to believe it happened here. No reason whatsoever. But when we start talking about unequal power, because clearly, well, I don't know how clear it is. Let's assume that Rabeal is the one who's got the power in the relationship. And let me just remove Rabeal and Rossini from the equation. Let me just do a hypothetical. Yeah. So it's 100% clear we're not, I'm not suggesting this happened here. And I have no reason to believe it did. But if a coach who understands that part of the job is interacting with the media, you have formal press conferences, you talk off to the side, you have reporters around all the time, that's part of the job. It's part of the people you come in contact with during the course of your employment. Every company has a sexual harassment policy that applies not only to co-workers, but anyone you come in contact with during the course of your employment. You think about it, people come in contact with all sorts of people as they're doing their job who aren't co-workers, but you interact with them while you're on your job. Fox is finding that out with Mark Sanchez, and the guy he allegedly beat the hell out of in the alley in Indianapolis. Fox got sued over it. Now, it may be a aggressive legal theory that goes nowhere, but still, you can get yourself into trouble based on how you interact with others in the workplace. And Fox fired Sanchez. So even if Fox doesn't have liability, they recognize this guy did something while, you know, on a work trip for us, he shouldn't have done. So, if you're in this setting where there are reporters who are actively covering the team, it's part of their job. Your job as a coach is to interact with the reporters. If you, as the coach, offer to a reporter, I will help you in your job. I will give you information in exchange for sexual favors. That's quid pro quo sexual harassment. That's textbook. And it doesn't matter that person isn't working directly under you in the workplace. Yeah. Yeah. And so again, no reason to believe that happened here. But the point is the Patriots wanted to investigate. That's a way to investigate, but they don't. So yes, it's two different jobs. Yes, it's two different standards, but there's still ways the Patriots could make this a big deal and could start poking around and could make things uncomfortable for variable based upon just, Hey, we have to do the responsible thing here. We're looking at these photos. We're looking at the statement you gave. We're looking at what the athletics doing. And maybe we should and maybe we should investigate this just to be sure. There wasn't any violation of any of our workplace policies, but I don't get the impression they want to do that. No, and maybe I'm wrong. But when I asked them for a statement last Tuesday, they had they had no comment. We don't know what they're doing. But that's that. So it's two standards, two jobs, but there's still standards that apply to variable that may not be obvious. They're more obvious for Rossini than they are for variable, but they're still there for brave. Yeah, they're there. They definitely are. Like I said before, he is a distraction. I mean, this is one of the most distracting stories I can remember from a head coach and quite some time. I mean, yeah, we're going to have a draft pre pre draft press conference here and the next few days. Vrables not going to be a part of it. Everybody still doesn't matter when or how long he puts out this press conference. Everybody's still going to be. It's going to be the first thing he's going to have to answer. I don't care if he waits till August. It's not going anywhere. People are dying to ask questions about this. So yeah, that's where there's, you know, a distraction. But does that, you know, again, fall over him not being able to do his job and do it the right way? No, all the other stuff you explained definitely does. And on top of that, like we've talked about with football, just like the players in the locker room, you know, player number 53 on the roster makes a mistake. You might be cut, you know, player in the top five on the roster makes that same mistake. Hey, come in here. Let's talk about that. Let's be better next time. It's embarrassing for the Patriots. Certainly right now, they don't want to have to deal with this. I'm sure the craft family's disappointed. I'm sure, of course, Mike Vrables is extremely disappointed, guilty or not guilty. He knows what it's done to the team and what he's got to deal with here and all that. But, you know, to your awesome, to also do your other point, he's a high ranking official at the New England Patriots way higher than Diana Rossini is at the New York times. And within that, not only is he a high ranking official, he's an elite at his job, at that high ranking official job. He's a new age, Bill Parcells or Bill Belichick we got right here. So to your point with all that too, yeah, they don't, they don't want to dig too deep. And he would be, you know, with, with a lack of a better way to say it, he wouldn't be the first coach to be a man whore in the world. Okay. And again, I'm not saying he did it or didn't, but this wouldn't be the first time. And so yeah, it's unfortunate all the way around. It's not a good look for Mike Vrables and it's a bad look for the New England Patriots, but it does, like you said, it feels like they're going to weather the storm and, you know, just let this kind of ride itself out and hopefully not have to deal with it too much here as we go forward. And we're not saying that's right. We're just giving you our perspective. It doesn't seem like the Patriots want to do anything about this because they have a guy that they believe is their long-term answer at coach. They just want it to go away. They just want it to go away. The attitude is no different than Patriots fans. They just want it to go away. Their first thought isn't for the people involved. It's how's it going to affect the team? How's it going to affect the team? We don't want it to affect the team. The Patriots are trying to make it not affect the team, but he's back on the competition committee. And even if he wasn't, he's still subject to the league's personal conduct policy. And there is that catch-all. They've got bullet points of all the things that you can't do, of all the things that if you do them, you're going to be subject to scrutiny and discipline under the personal conduct policy. The very last one says this, conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL personnel. That is ridiculously broad. And I think it's in there. So if there's somebody they really want to get, they have that. If all else fails, you know, this person needs to be disciplined under the personal conduct policy. Well, hey, Roger, we don't, we, I'm looking at the bullet points. There is, it's not this. It's not this. It's not this. It's not this. It's not this. It's not this. It's not this. It's not this. It's not this. Well, how about this? Conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL personnel. Okay, we got him. The problem is, man, there are plenty of people employed by the NFL and NFL teams. Yeah. You'd be open up a box there. So engaged in conduct that undermines and you know, who's in that box. We got lots of damn Pandora's in that one. Pandora's in that box. Yeah. A party over there. So, but that, so the NFL would have to want to do that, but, but does this, that's the question. Regardless of what else is out there. Okay. And it's, it's better to put it this way. Is the mere existence of the photos coupled with a very strident comment from Brable, any other characterization is laughable. Basically, if you see anything other than what I see in these photos, you're dumb. Is that enough for the NFL to take a step back to look at the situation and investigate the question of whether or not Brable engaged in conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity of the NFL. I think that's enough to at least look around and try to figure out what the hell is going on here. That's enough. The photos in the statement are enough to get a prudent employer who truly cares about applying the rules and truly lives by the standards it has created to say, you know what, it's enough going on here that we should at least, at least find the facts. Let's find out more about what's going on here. Cause there's something about this that makes me think that maybe there's something there. We just need to figure out whether or not there's a there there. So again, I don't think they're going to do it, but they could. And it's not as obvious as editorial guidelines that apply, the very high bar that applies to the reporter, but there are still standards that apply to the coach. And for now, there's no reason to believe that anyone is going to do anything other than look the other way, head low, mouth shut, don't come to the press conference on Monday, Elliot Wolf will handle it. We'll kick this two weeks out. And like you said, it doesn't matter. Cause you know what, the next time he shows up for a press conference, it's not going to be the beat writers who are going to be looking at each other and saying, I ain't asking that question. Why aren't asking that question? Why? I'm no, you know, you know, somebody else, there'll be people that are specifically to ask that question. Yeah, they'll be national media. There'll be people from news outlets there with one goal in mind to ask that question. And there'll be more than one question along those lines. I would think so. Yeah. Like we said, this is cross mainstream. I mean, this is TMZ. I mean, this is whatever you look at, it doesn't matter whatever news it is. I mean, whether you like Fox CNN, Yahoo, whatever, this damn story is on there. So I would agree with you and you can avoid it for a little bit, but yes, I still think if somebody knows, he's going to talk at the start of OTAs, you're going to see, yeah, other publications there for sure. You're right about that. Now, you know, to everything you said, I hear what you're saying. It's a slippery slope, I guess at the, at the end of the day too. Cause we know and know that, I mean, where do you draw the line about conduct detrimental to the NFL and all that? Gosh, damn, you could probably find something on everybody in the league that way. And that's where it's tough. But yeah, I hear what you're saying here. If they wanted to be nitpicky and tough, they certainly could do that. And that's the problem. Anybody out there that works for a company that has policies, practices, and procedures, first of all, don't have policies that you aren't willing to apply to everyone. Because if you apply them selectively, you're going to get screwed at some point. That's my free legal advice from a guy who turned in his law license happily, frankly, 17 years ago, 16 years ago. Also, also be aware of those catchall provisions because man, they're tempting to use when there's just someone you don't like. But the problem is those broad standards, everybody's violating those standards at one time or another. That's the problem. You can't have that catchall because you're going to catch hell at some point in the form of a lawsuit because that's going to be the thing that's the centerpiece of the argument. This standard is repeatedly violated and you never even bat an eye to look at it. And I think that's really the issue here. Are the patrons even batting an eye? Is the league even batting an eye? I think the league is just like, well, that sucks for her. And I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying they should. I'm saying it's fair to the facts of the case to not just business as usual, but we already saw with Steve Tisch. Look, we see standards are going to be applied to players and we see the standard gets applied to owners and it's two very different standards. Even though they tell us the bar is higher for the owners, in practice, the bar is higher for the players. Where do the coaches fall? It depends on whether or not they like you. If you're John Gruden, out you go, baby. We don't like John Gruden. Out he goes. There's other coaches. We don't like them. Oh, they stepped in it. Out they go. Other coaches, oh, they stepped in it. Well, it'll be fine. They'll clean off his shoe. We got other things to do. We got more important things. Don't you have more important things to do? We have more important things to do. So the coaches fall into that case by case. Do we like them? Do we not like them? And they must like Vrable. Of course. Because they didn't like Vrable. Something would have happened by now. Yeah. No, of course they do. I mean, they fired a guy that we know they love for years and years and anointed to be the head coach when Bill Belichick was basically still head coach. And they fired him. Yeah, because it didn't go well, but they also knew Mike Vrable was out there and they wanted Mike Vrable. So, I mean, you're right about that. I mean, certainly. So, yeah, I don't expect anything to be done and it's a crazy situation. Your point or your last point, because I know we got to go to break is the thing that probably bothers me the most as far as football is concerned. Right? I always care about the people and I don't like to see what's happening to Diana Rossini. It's tough. It really is. I feel for her that way. But, you know, at the same time, you know, it's crazy. And with the players and the situation there, that's where it does annoy me. Because you're right. Like if it was a player, again, Stefan Diggs probably got brought into the principal's office 10 times last year because he was on a boat and there was a video of all this and, oh gosh, and it just becomes a thing. And oh, is he a distraction of the football team and a coach can do something like this and it's everybody just like, oh, shut up and just go back to work. And that's as a player can kind of be hypocritical and drive you crazy at times. And look at it this way. Look at it this way. Yeah. And there are no similarities other than the fact that a distraction is a distraction. Bill Belichick, after he leaves the NFL, creates a distraction. And look, you can get mad at me for saying it's a distraction. It was a distraction. All the stuff that happened last year with his girlfriend, of course, that's a distraction. The stuff she was saying, the stuff that happened at that CBS softball interview that they thought was Mike Wallace in his prime. I mean, it's ridiculous. But can you imagine if he was still coaching the Patriots and that happened? I mean, you lose your authority to rail against distractions when you create a distraction as the head coach of the team. Yeah, no, I think that's what everybody is internally is going to be the key. No, I think that's what everybody in the NFL has scratched their head about Belichick. He's going, what? He was so anti-do this. Don't be a distraction to a football team and you're a distraction. And then on top of that, wait, you're the most cutthroat head coach ever. And then the team got cutthroat with you and you're going to be petty about it for three years. And that like, how dare you make a business decision like I made on everybody else in the world, nine million times. That to me is where, you know, Belichick's lost the ear of the NFL because it just, it's bull crap on one side of the mouth of the other. Yeah. The point is he created this distraction and it created this comparison. Like, I mean, former players of his were upset. And I wasn't very articulate in my point. Former players of his are upset because he's creating a distraction years later, of course, in another job at another level of the sport. How are the players in the locker room in New England going to feel about Vrabel's authority to preach to them about not creating distractions? That's my point. Yeah. It's happening while he's still employed by the Patriots. He's going to have some work to do. Yeah, totally. You're right. At some point, he's going to have to kind of address it and own it and then be like, Hey, don't be like me and, you know, whatever his message will be. But yeah, I would think that this is not something that you can just kind of swipe under the rug forever here. There's one more point because I'm, you know, it is the most interesting story right now in the NFL. And I don't know. I think it would become one of the most interesting stories in the NFL. It happened during the height of the season now. We'd be moving on to a bright, shiny object even faster. But still, there's a lot there. There's one thing that I've heard from people in the media about that is the next frontier to kind of do some fact gathering and fact finding and to get some information that could speak to the credibility of something on which people wager every year, the annual awards. Let's take a break and I'll tell you what I know and what I'm trying to find out as it relates to that wrinkle as it relates to this issue next on this Monday edition of PFT live. All right, PFT live Monday edition. I've gotten plenty of questions from people on the 2025 awards because Diana Rossini voted on the AP awards. Chris and I both have ballots and here's where it gets weird. Yeah. In 24, they did not tell us they were going to release our full ballots and then they released our full ballots and Diana Rossini is on record is being upset because her phone blew up with complaints from people that I guess they thought she voted for them and she didn't. So that was weird that the AP released everyone's ballots without telling anyone in advance they were going to. This year, the email from the Associated Press told us that they will be, not might be, not reserve the right to be, will be releasing the ballots and then came the awards and they didn't release the ballots. And I say that because I think it's fair game to ask the AP for individual ballots and I'm curious about her coach of the year ballot and I don't know what it's going to show. I don't know what it's going to show. And hey, Vrable won. And it's not even close. It's not like if you throw her votes out, Liam Cohen wins. Yeah. But I think that there's one very interesting potential outcome on her ballot and it would be if Vrable is first and the next four or guys who had no chance to win and then Liam Cohen's not even on the ballot. That's the thing that would be very interesting if that's how her ballot goes. And it's fair game at this point to say, and I've asked the AP to disclose the ballot because I'm just curious to see what it shows because that's, I've heard from enough people in the media who are concerned about the integrity of the voting and think about people bet on this stuff. Like there has to be clear integrity of the voting process, but that's the next frontier in all of this from a news gathering standpoint. What was her ballot for 2025? And there's anything, is there anything else in there that seems unusual? Yeah. I mean, I'm certainly, I mean, it's, you know, people are going scorched earth on this. I mean, all the things on Instagram, old interviews, interviews where she's, you know, taking a slight shot or a full shot at her husband, you know, I mean, it's, it's so everybody's looking for stuff like this now. I mean, that's, you know, like if we talk about, we laugh about, yeah, the Pandora's box is open and there's a lot of crap flying out of there right now at all angles, you know, so yeah, people are going to look at this and want to know the weird one about this, like you kind of said is Vrable was, you know, such a favorite in this. It's not going to be crazy if, if he's one, but you're right. If it's no Ben Johnson at two or Liam Cohn at two and that, and it's totally like, wait, I'm just going to frame it for Vrable. That might be a little fishy. Yeah. There's no doubt about that. So, and, but in the other part of this too, that, you know, with the ballots, yeah, sure, we all want to see if there's something fishy, but we also both know that there was, I think a faction of reporters out there or people that have votes for the AP and all that for all pro and they, they talk to coaches and GMs. Hey, what do you think about this guy? What do you think about that guy? You know, the teams themselves, as we know, pubs, pub people for all pro or coach of the year. Exactly. So that's where it's like, where do you draw the line? I don't know. You're going to have some personal relationships where you're going to trust somebody more than the other person and they're going to tell you, hey, I think this person at left guard should be all pro and you're going to go, I trust this person. I know them. I'm going to listen to that. So that's where it's a tough one here. But yeah, I'm, I'm interested to hear what you, what you got when you finally see this ballot. And I think it is fair game. Again, people wager on these awards. That process needs to have the highest level of integrity. And there may be other reporters who could be scrutinized, but the photos, the statements, they lit the fuse that has caused this to happen. You mentioned Ben Johnson. The 2024 ballots are out there. Yeah, I found them yesterday. Yeah. She didn't have Ben Johnson on her ballot for coach of the year, assistant coach of the year in 24. Now three others didn't out of 50, but she didn't. And I was like, is this like somebody who doesn't help her? Is this somebody who doesn't talk to her? Is this like, does that get, does that get weaponized in any way? I don't know. Yeah, that's odd. It should not be at the end of the day. It should not be at the end of the day. And this is the challenge we all have. We cannot let any personal feelings we may or may not have affect the integrity of our assessment of the best of the best. And it's not that difficult to set it aside. Somebody doesn't like me. Well, still the best coach. Somebody wouldn't do an interview with me. Still the MVP. Somebody said something about me. Still the, the defensive player of the year, whatever it may be, you got to be able to set that aside. And that's why, and I don't know, I don't know. I just, you know, it's just weird. The AP, the year after they didn't tell us they're putting the balance out and they did, they told us and they didn't. But I just want to see what's there. And I think it's fair. And I'd love to see them all. I'd love to see them all. But obviously, the one that's going to generate the most interest in the moment is the reporter who's under a level of scrutiny under a set of facts in the 25 years I've been doing this, I've never seen. And I don't remember anything like this from the 25 years before that, that I was a fan of the NFL. Yeah, no, this is, this is next level. I don't know if I've ever seen anything like this either to where it crossed over again to mainstream media. It's become a hot button topic. We've all had heard rumors and things of this nature in the history of football. Yeah, you know, yeah, that coach hooked up with that beat reporter. Somebody has that gone on. Yeah, we know that has. It's, it's a lot of people in the history of the NFL. But this one, yeah, I think with the pictures to go along with it and then the story and then there are such strong denial. And then yet, like you talked about in the first segment segment, you know, no evidence of the other people that were supposedly there, you know, sharing it. Nobody really coming on record to be like, no, no, no, I was one of those people they're talking about that was there. That, that to itself has made it, I think even catch on fire even more here. And yeah, it doesn't seem like it's going anywhere anytime soon. No, it's definitely not going anywhere. And even though the draft is 10 days away, I don't think it subsides before the draft. I think the draft will provide that hard reset. But yeah, with Rable not talking today, is he not going to talk during the draft? Most teams make the coach and the GM available. The first day, the second day, the third day of the draft. And maybe that's the time to do it because there will be many other things to ask about. Yeah, yeah. But he's still going to get asked about it. He is. There will be a question framed about it. And I think his best play may be to create a new statement that strikes the right tone. Maybe wait and see what the athletic does and something can happen as soon as today. Wait and see what the athletic does, issue a new statement, and then make it clear that you will have no further comment on the matter. So when you're asked about it, you can say everything's in my statement. Now it's got to be a thorough, I can't be a one sentence. It's got to be something thorough. Yeah. But that's the best way to do it because otherwise you're talking about extemporaneously. And if you may flash some frustration, if you think, Oh, why the hell do I even have to talk about this? Why do people care about this? Don't they have other things to care about? And that could be the reaction. Look, if you don't understand or don't care to understand the nuances of the employment principles at play here, it's very easy to just take a brusque kind of, man, you people are weird. Why do you care about this? This is laughable. That same attitude that came through in the statement from last Tuesday. I like those statements from last Tuesday and all three of them. And I remember thinking at the time because this was the moment that I decided to write about it because like I don't know what to do with this. I saw the photos and it's like, I don't really know what to make of this. And I scroll the story, scroll, scroll, scroll, scroll, scroll, scroll, scroll. And I see the statements. It's like, Holy, I gotta write the story now because we have these denials. Yeah, you take that strong right out of the gates. You take that strong position. Any other consideration or characterization is laughable. Set yourself up for a problem. Too bad he doesn't have a country to bomb and start a war with to start a distraction on the conversation. Too bad. The Epstein files are still there. But wait, but then if the war doesn't go well, you got to come back and have someone do a press conference about the thing you're trying to destroy. We're there to protect the people of what we're going to destroy their whole civilization because now we've made a mistake and we don't know how to get out of it. So we're going to destroy all their people. The ones we said were there to save. That's right. All right. Too bad he doesn't have that option to take away from the story. We have one thing to, we don't want people to talk about. So we use this to create a distraction. But then when this becomes something we don't want to talk about, we go back to this to create the distraction. Then when this becomes again, then we, yeah, and then there are no civilizations that that accept the jets. Maybe variable can just threaten to destroy the jets. Not that that's a difficult thing to do. Okay. Let's take a break. When we return, news came out yesterday about a potential high pick in the 2026 draft being involved in an incident from 2024. What it is, what it means and whether it will be a factor for the player involved. That's next on PFT Live.