2025-26 NFL Thread

[WhiteTrash]

I mean, eventually, he'll have to pay for it

 

[Pakuni]

https://x.com/RapSheet/status/2042702676001984690?s=20

[CreightonWarrior]

Was hoping a Wr would be trading for a player position of need. But a logjam of WR4s in the Packers locker room.

[wadesworld]

Was hoping a Wr would be trading for a player position of need. But a logjam of WR4s in the Packers locker room.

Gutey loves his late round picks.  Can't sign free agents, need to let all our free agents walk and get those compensatory picks!

[Jockey]

Good haul for a guy who has never done much.

[Jockey]

Shouldn't Vrabel be forced to resign?

[The Sultan]

Shouldn't Vrabel be forced to resign?

No. Why?

[Jockey]

No. Why?

My post was sarcasm for the women always facing consequences.

[wadesworld]

https://atozsports.com/nfl/green-bay-packers-news/anders-carlson-former-packers-draft-pick-ufl/

[Pakuni]

My post was sarcasm for the women always facing consequences.

Sure, there's a double standard with these things. Nobody loses their minds over Peter Schrager being best buds with Sean McVay.
That said, even if there was nothing sexual here, frolicking at a romantic getaway resort with a source is a terrible look for a reporter and worthy of scrutiny.

Not sure what you think Vrabel did wrong here that would cost him his job. Maybe his marriage, but I don't think having a side piece has ever been a fireable offense in the NFL.

[MUBurrow]

Not sure what you think Vrabel did wrong here that would cost him his job. Maybe his marriage, but I don't think having a side piece has ever been a fireable offense in the NFL.

The fact that his side piece is a lead NFL reporter at the Athletic isn't relevant to that analysis?

[Pakuni]

The fact that his side piece is a lead NFL reporter at the Athletic isn't relevant to that analysis?

No. Why would it be?

[The Sultan]

Sure, there's a double standard with these things. Nobody loses their minds over Peter Schrager being best buds with Sean McVay.
That said, even if there was nothing sexual here, frolicking at a romantic getaway resort with a source is a terrible look for a reporter and worthy of scrutiny.

Not to mention she very clearly lied to her employee about it initially.

[MUBurrow]

No. Why would it be?

Confidentiality issues.  The professional conflicts are worse for Russini, but they aren't non-existent for Vrabel.

[Pakuni]

Confidentiality issues.  The professional conflicts are worse for Russini, but they aren't non-existent for Vrabel.

There aren't many NFL coaches or GMs who would keep their jobs for long if leaking info to an "insider" were a fireable offense.

[MUBurrow]

There aren't many NFL coaches or GMs who would keep their jobs for long if leaking info to an "insider" were a fireable offense.

100% But that's just it - that assumes a professional level quid pro quo and control of the information spigot.  When you're having a secret affair with the "insider," you lose some control of that information flow, whether by slip ups, misplaced romantic trust, blackmail of being found out, or otherwise.

[CreightonWarrior]

Coaches don't have the expectation of journalistic integrity.

[WhiteTrash]

100% But that's just it - that assumes a professional level quid pro quo and control of the information spigot.  When you're having a secret affair with the "insider," you lose some control of that information flow, whether by slip ups, misplaced romantic trust, blackmail of being found out, or otherwise.

Your reaching to create a definitive correlation of an affair to leaking information.
I would say it may make it more likely, but not a definitive outcome.

For NFL employees, having an affair outside the organization is not firable.
For NFL employees, leaking confidential information could be firable depending on multiple variables.

Perhaps a 'conduct damaging to the league' clause could be in play?

[Uncle Rico]

Your reaching to create a definitive correlation of an affair to leaking information.
I would say it may make it more likely, but not a definitive outcome.

For NFL employees, having an affair outside the organization is not firable.
For NFL employees, leaking confidential information could be firable depending on multiple variables.

Perhaps a 'conduct damaging to the league' clause could be in play?

Depends on the coaches record

[WhiteTrash]

Depends on the coaches record

Well there is that "fact" also. 

[Jockey]

Not sure what you think Vrabel did wrong here that would cost him his job. Maybe his marriage, but I don't think having a side piece has ever been a fireable offense in the NFL.

Not sure what Russini did wrong.

[Pakuni]

100% But that's just it - that assumes a professional level quid pro quo and control of the information spigot.  When you're having a secret affair with the "insider," you lose some control of that information flow, whether by slip ups, misplaced romantic trust, blackmail of being found out, or otherwise.

I'm not sure how you lose control of the information flow. Does Vrabel uncontrollably shout out injury status reports mid-coitus? I just don't see how a coach leaking info to a romantic partner is a worse/different problem than a coach leaking info to his golfing buddy.

[Pakuni]

Not sure what Russini did wrong.

Engaging in an undisclosed romantic or close personal relationship with a source would be a violation of journalistic ethics.
This is from the NY Times Ethical Journalism guide (remember, The Athletic is owned by the Times):

Personal Relations With Sources

Relationships with sources require sound judgment and self discipline to prevent the fact or appearance of partiality. Cultivating sources is an essential skill, often practiced most effectively in informal settings outside of normal business hours. Yet staff members, especially those assigned to beats, must be sensitive that personal relationships with news sources can erode into favoritism, in fact or appearance. And conversely staff members must be aware that sources are eager to win our good will for reasons of their own.

Even though this topic defies hard and fast rules, it is essential that we preserve a professional detachment, free of any whiff of bias. Staff members may see sources informally over a meal or drinks, but they must keep in mind the difference between legitimate business and personal friendship; a recurring social engagement with a source risks creating an appearance of coziness. Scrupulous practice requires that periodically we step back and take a hard look at whether we have drifted too close to sources we deal with regularly. The acid test of freedom from favoritism is the ability to maintain good working relationships with all parties to a dispute.

Clearly, romantic involvement with a news source would foster an appearance of partiality. Therefore staff members who develop close relationships with people who might figure in coverage they provide, edit, package or supervise must disclose those relationships to the standards editor. In some cases, no further action may be needed. But in other instances staff members may have to recuse themselves from certain coverage. And in still other cases, assignments may have to be modified or beats changed to avoid the appearance of conflict.


https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-standards/ethical-journalism.html

[Uncle Rico]

Engaging in an undisclosed romantic or close personal relationship with a source would be a violation of journalistic ethics.
This is from the NY Times Ethical Journalism guide (remember, The Athletic is owned by the Times):

Personal Relations With Sources

Relationships with sources require sound judgment and self discipline to prevent the fact or appearance of partiality. Cultivating sources is an essential skill, often practiced most effectively in informal settings outside of normal business hours. Yet staff members, especially those assigned to beats, must be sensitive that personal relationships with news sources can erode into favoritism, in fact or appearance. And conversely staff members must be aware that sources are eager to win our good will for reasons of their own.

Even though this topic defies hard and fast rules, it is essential that we preserve a professional detachment, free of any whiff of bias. Staff members may see sources informally over a meal or drinks, but they must keep in mind the difference between legitimate business and personal friendship; a recurring social engagement with a source risks creating an appearance of coziness. Scrupulous practice requires that periodically we step back and take a hard look at whether we have drifted too close to sources we deal with regularly. The acid test of freedom from favoritism is the ability to maintain good working relationships with all parties to a dispute.

Clearly, romantic involvement with a news source would foster an appearance of partiality. Therefore staff members who develop close relationships with people who might figure in coverage they provide, edit, package or supervise must disclose those relationships to the standards editor. In some cases, no further action may be needed. But in other instances staff members may have to recuse themselves from certain coverage. And in still other cases, assignments may have to be modified or beats changed to avoid the appearance of conflict.


https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-standards/ethical-journalism.html

She'll just get hired by Outkick or Barstool.  She'll be fine but divorced.

[Jockey]

Engaging in an undisclosed romantic or close personal relationship with a source would be a violation of journalistic ethics.
This is from the NY Times Ethical Journalism guide (remember, The Athletic is owned by the Times):

Personal Relations With Sources

Relationships with sources require sound judgment and self discipline to prevent the fact or appearance of partiality. Cultivating sources is an essential skill, often practiced most effectively in informal settings outside of normal business hours. Yet staff members, especially those assigned to beats, must be sensitive that personal relationships with news sources can erode into favoritism, in fact or appearance. And conversely staff members must be aware that sources are eager to win our good will for reasons of their own.

Even though this topic defies hard and fast rules, it is essential that we preserve a professional detachment, free of any whiff of bias. Staff members may see sources informally over a meal or drinks, but they must keep in mind the difference between legitimate business and personal friendship; a recurring social engagement with a source risks creating an appearance of coziness. Scrupulous practice requires that periodically we step back and take a hard look at whether we have drifted too close to sources we deal with regularly. The acid test of freedom from favoritism is the ability to maintain good working relationships with all parties to a dispute.

Clearly, romantic involvement with a news source would foster an appearance of partiality. Therefore staff members who develop close relationships with people who might figure in coverage they provide, edit, package or supervise must disclose those relationships to the standards editor. In some cases, no further action may be needed. But in other instances staff members may have to recuse themselves from certain coverage. And in still other cases, assignments may have to be modified or beats changed to avoid the appearance of conflict.


https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-standards/ethical-journalism.html

OK, I always trust that Times.