ESPN won’t comment on whether it will be reviewing the reporting of former ESPN (and The Athletic) reporter Dianna Russini, given the photos published last week of Russini with Patriots coach Mike Vrabel in March 2020. That won’t stop others from reviewing her reporting as to matters relating to Vrabel’s team at the time.
As it relates to the 2021 trade that sent receiver Julio Jones from the Falcons to the Titans, it’s fair to wonder whether the reporting was calculated to help Tennessee secure the player under the most favorable terms.
Tony Farmer, who has been extensively covering the situation on Twitter, has found another report that objectively merits scrutiny.
As Farmer notes, Russini reported — only four days after the March 2020 photos reportedly were taken — that the Titans were “not interested” in quarterback Tom Brady, and that they were instead focused on extending the contract of quarterback Ryan Tannehill, who had been named the NFL’s Comeback Player of the Year in 2019.
While this item lacks the potential strategic benefits to the Titans of the Julio Jones reporting, it’s another bread crumb on a trail that people are now examining. And it’s fair to question whether the Titans were simply putting a positive P.R. spin on the possibility that the Brady had said “no thanks” to the Titans before the Titans created the impression that they were saying “no thanks” to Brady.
Although the 2020 negotiating window had not yet opened, rampant Brady tampering was happening. Teams were talking to him (and about him) before the official window for talking to him (or about him) had opened. It’s not unreasonable to think that, by March 15, he had crossed Tennessee off the list.
For now, it’s another piece of a puzzle that spans at least six years. And it underscores the reality that the NFL insider game isn’t about gumshoe reporting. It’s about leveraging the right relationships in order to be in position to be handed key pieces information, sometimes in ways that potentially benefit the source.
This latest nugget also helps explain ESPN’s relative silence regarding the entire story. ESPN largely ignored it until it had no choice but to cover it. While some have suggested it’s a result of the NFL’s recent acquisition of a 10-percent stake in ESPN, it’s possible ESPN doesn’t want to face the question of what it knew, and when it knew it.
This content was brought to you by: profootballtalk
