Content available exclusively for subscribers
On January 27, The Athletic’s Zach Rosenblatt announced, “The Jets reached out to Jon Gruden about the idea of joining Aaron Glenn’s staff, according to multiple sources. Gruden wasn’t interested in the job.”
On Friday, Jon Gruden responded to the report while appearing on the radio station WDAE in Tampa:
“There’s a lot of reports that we’re not going to get into. As you know, there’s a lot of stupid rumors out there,” Gruden said. “Some of these reports are ridiculous. Let’s just say there was never anything from the Jets, and I wish them well in their search for a new offensive coordinator.”
Where does the truth lie on this one, probably somewhere in the middle?
First of all, why can’t The Athletic, owned by the New York Times, put the actual number of sources? Why do they have to put “multiple?”
A lot of insiders will say “multiple sources” or “several sources.”
What journalism school would tell a reporting in training – don’t put an actual number on something, just say “multiple” or “several.”
That would be like writing, “Buffalo Bills quarterback Mitch Trubisky threw multiple TD passes in a win over the Jets.” Would you just say he threw “four.”
And I’m not going to lie, I usually don’t believe most reporters when they say “several” or “multiple.” I’ve been doing this a long time, and I can tell, it’s really hard to get one source for a scoop, they people who constantly use “several” or “multiple,” I don’t buy it most of the time
Do I think Rosenblatt had a source on this story? Absolutely.
Agents are some of the chattiest people on the planet.
Gruden’s agent, Bob LaMonte, one of the first agents focused on just coaches, is very media-friendly.
I have no idea if the story came from LaMonte. No idea. Just saying he’s very media-friendly.
As for Gruden, denying the story, that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
People in the football world are very much into sematics – when Gruden says, ” Let’s just say there was never anything from the Jets.”
What exactly does that mean? Does that mean not contact, or does that mean no offer?
Those are two different things.
The Jets, just doing their due diligence, could have reached out to Gruden, but there was no interest, and that was as far as it went.
A kicking of the tires, if you will.
But if there was any leak of a casual conservation, it’s bad look for Gruden and his camp, and Gruden probably knows that.
After getting fired by the Raiders due to an e-mail scandal, and essentially blacklisted by the league since, why is it a good idea if a team finally shows legitimate interest, do make them look bad by somebody leaking out that he turned them down?
If the Jets were legitimately interested, and were perhaps willing to give a job to somebody who has hard time getting one, why would he, or somebody from his camp, leak out something to make a team, willing to perhaps take a chance on him again, look bad.
That would make him look like an ingrate and perhaps make other teams hesitate to even reach out to kick the tires, because it might get leaked.
Zach Rosenblatt and Connor Hughes, who do a podcast for a Jets media partner, SNY, have made a cottage industry of telling the world about candidates who turned the Jets down.
Almost going out of their way to embarrass the Jets.
Candidates turn down teams all the time. That is part of the process.
Can we stop with the scoreboard about this stuff?
And can some of these sleazeball agents keep private conversations private?
Leaking private conversations is a sin, isn’t it?
I certainly would want anyone doing that to me, I can assure you of that.
And this leak, whatever you make of it, isn’t exactly a good look for Gruden, if he’s looking to get back into the league.
January 30, 2025
Premium will return on Monday at 9:30 pm (or sooner).
