What can we expect from Vrabel's next presser?
Mike Florio and Tom E. Curran share why Mike Vrabel will likely find himself in a "tough spot" the next time he faces reporters following the controversy surrounding himself and Dianna Russini.
Video Transcript
Yeah.
And so Tom, let's spin this forward.
Okay?
Mike Vrabel didn't speak with the media last week in the pre-draft press conference, and as it turns out, when they announced the media availability schedule in March, it was just Elliot Wolf and not him, but he did speak last year.
That, that in and of itself was like, okay, we're gonna have more time go by until he speaks.
When he speaks next, what can he say?
Because if he comes out with this forceful, strident, "I can't believe how much coverage there's been.
I can't bel- like, why, why haven't you said anything?"
Like, if it's that bad, if he really goes over the top and expresses disappointment in the coverage and all the I don't know.
There, there's It's gonna be a tough balance for him because I think it's gonna be hard, given the fact that Diana Russini ultimately resigned while under investigation by The Athletic, it's gonna be very hard for him to keep banging the "it's laughable" drum.
He's gonna be in a tough spot here, and my guess is they will have a coordinated and planned and manicured position that he takes.
Maybe they test it out a few times, do some dry runs.
Like, we have to understand, this is just another example of what we eventually see didn't happen spontaneously.
It's, it's the product of planning and debate and discussion.
What's the right way to handle this?
I don't know.
What do you think we're gonna hear from him next, and what do you think he's gonna say?
Friday night, around midnight Excuse me.
Thursday night, around midnight, after the pick is made, he'll come out, and whether or not he makes an initial statement when he gets to the podium a- and then talks about the pick and just kind of riffs and plows through, and then concludes, and then opens it up to questions, and the first question most likely will be about the past two and a half weeks.
I agree with you.
I think that being condescending, laughable, you know, derisive towards the conversation is probably not the greatest idea.
I think it would also Look, it depends upon the initial veracity of Mike's statement.
If it's, if it is truly laughable that there was anything untoward going on, then I would continue to say that.
What For me, the only thing I would- But how can you say it's laughable when the other person got, lost- 'Cause the other person works in an- didn't get fired, but the other person lost her job entirely different field.
Be- because the other person works- I know, but it makes it not laughable in an entirely different field at which their objectivity- Right cannot be compromised, and the other one's supposed to win games.
I know.
I know.
I know.
So that I've heard that 1,000 times now.
Well, why is Diana carrying all the freight from this and Mike isn't?
Because the tenet, and I couldn't think of many closer friends I have, I'm gonna give that preface, than Diana, in this business.
But the tenet is that y- you have to remain objective, especially if you're working for The New York Times and you just Your portion of The Athletic just came under the auspices of The Times, and they're probably looking askance down their noses because they're under the impression that they're incredibly objective.
And, it just is given too much, as you have known and reported on, I'm sure, in the past couple weeks.
Totally different industry.
Well, look, I don't wanna take I know it's a totally different industry, but there are still standards and rules that potentially apply to Mike Vrabel that are far less obvious than the bedrock notion of avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest, especially when you work for The New York Times, and in turn, The Athletic, which has exacting standards that may not apply to ESPN, Fox, NBC, other mainstream outlets that don't call themselves the Gray Lady.
Okay?
Right.
But when you take that job with The Athletic, you, you accept that the standards are higher, and you better understand that they're higher, and you better act accordingly and not allow yourself to be photographed in a compromising position that could easily be interpreted to be something that maybe it isn't, or maybe it is.
But that's, that's as it relates to her.
There are still standards that could apply to Mike Vrabel, and it's obvious- 100% the NFL and the Patriots have no desire, they have no desire to even start down the path of asking questions as to whether or not Vrabel may have done anything that would violate terms and conditions of his employment by the Patriots, and more broadly, by the NFL.
Why not?
Because they like him.
If they didn't like him This is what happens all the time in American business.
Or is it why not because- If a, an employer likes someone- there might be instances- Let me finish.
Let me finish.
Let me finish.
Let me finish.
I'm answering your question, Tom.
You asked me a question, I start to answer it, and you cut me off, and it's my freaking show.
Oh my God.
This is what That's what you've been doing that to me.
Okay.
So if they didn't like him, look at Jon Gruden and look at Sean Payton.
That's how they do guys they don't like.
They'll find something.
They'll find something to get you if they don't like you.
If they like you, well, they exercise discretion in a way that can become problematic if you ever have someone else who is in the exact same set of facts and you aggressively investigate and potentially discipline.
And I'm not saying that there's any reason to think that Vrabel violated any procedures.
As you've said, it's two different jobs, it's two different standards.
But the idea that no one's even asking the basic questions that would form the foundation for a You know, we don't know what he was telling her.
We don't know if she was a indirect tool for tampering.
We don't know if he was saying things that the Patriots would say, "Man, you're breaching confidences that you shouldn't be breaching, and you've got a clause in your contract that says that, that you ca-" I mean, we don't know because they're not inclined to even start down that path.
That's my point.
Sure.
And I think additionally- That's my point that there might be millions Not millions.
God.
There could be precedent otherwise where relationships with media members, even if you didn't wind up in a hot tub, were compromising.
I remember a, a long time ago, there was a, a- I know famous coach.
When I went from covering the team for the Providence Journal to nbcsports.com back in 2006, the person said, "Oh, you're going there?
Maybe we can talk a little bit more now."
That reason being is you become a conduit for other sources- Right within the league, and you become an information warehouse.
I didn't love being an information warehouse 'cause I don't like talking on the phone that much.
But if you happen to be one of those point people who are at the intersection of all the teams, individuals within the league will love to talk to you because you might know the thinking of the other 31, and that's helpful.
So there's a lot of cozy relationships with certain reporters
