"Is this thread for real? It's called "off-the-record." That means that the source provided info with the stipulation that it not be disclosed."Off the record has to do with protecting the source, not the story itself. In other words, no journalist I have ever heard of would say, "I have been sworn to secrecy" over a story. They say that sort of thing all the time when it comes to not revealing a source - but never in regards to protecting a story. There is simply no such thing as "protecting a story." In this particular case, Freeman's personal difficulties were the story. They were not tangential or irrelevant. Josh Freeman, as the QB of the team, should have never been benched based upon poor play in a few games. But, he should have been benched if he had conduct detrimental to the team.Schiano's reputation was drug through the mud. It led to a snowball effect that I believe ultimately cost him his job. He was portrayed on PR as a monster and tyrant. So, while Scott protected Freeman, he may have played at least a small role in Schiano's fate. His saying "my bad" after the fact didn't change his role. I believe that Schiano, like Saban and Spurrier (two unsuccessful NFL coaches), would have been a fairly hot college coaching name now, if not for his name being dragged through the mud by a number of NFL reporters. It's funny how once PR quit trashing him, so did the national analysts.What if the true story is something like... Schiano discovered Freeman had a drug problem and tried to get him help. Because Schiano had no confidence that Freeman could overcome the problem, he was hesitant to throw all his support behind Freeman. Freeman probably stayed sober for a period of time, but then relapsed. Once he relapsed, Schiano had no choice but to move on. If that were the true story, and if it would have come out back then, might the national reporters have seen Schiano as a good guy who fell victim to the terrible luck of being stuck with a "Franchise QB" who was a drug addict? I mean, that's quite a hurtle for a head coach to overcome. If the story is anything like what I just described, journalistic integrity would demand for Scott to say something in order for the record to be put straight(and Schiano's tarnished reputation to be restored.I'm sorry... but it is a big deal. It has affected people's careers. Again, journalistic integrity dictates that the reporter tells the whole story, especially if they misreported it to begin with. That's why I can only assume that my post at the beginning of this thread is the actual scenario we are looking at here. I like Scott's writing in general, and I like PR. In this particular case, Scott has actually placed himself into the story. That was really a poor decision.
Boom. I agree that the covering of this whole Schiano-Freeman situation has been confusing and muddy.
Will you people move on already; we an OC officially announced today, DC unofficially announced, same for QB coach and ST coach but you guys want to talk about 2 guys that are no longer in town.
When he felt he was wrong he stepped up to the plate and admitted it to every person who would take the time to read the article.
He also didn't apologize for using unnamed sources, he apologized for those sources being"inaccurate". There is a big difference there. It's nice that he wants to protect Josh. But don't pretend he isn't treating Josh with a different standard. Oh, and he wasn't just "wrong" in his reporting. There are a lot of other adjectives that could, and should be used when describing it.
Will you people move on already; we an OC officially announced today, DC unofficially announced, same for QB coach and ST coach but you guys want to talk about 2 guys that are no longer in town.
God forbid we discuss insider articles and insider chat on the insider board.
"Is this thread for real? It's called "off-the-record." That means that the source provided info with the stipulation that it not be disclosed."Off the record has to do with protecting the source, not the story itself. In other words, no journalist I have ever heard of would say, "I have been sworn to secrecy" over a story. They say that sort of thing all the time when it comes to not revealing a source - but never in regards to protecting a story. There is simply no such thing as "protecting a story." In this particular case, Freeman's personal difficulties were the story. They were not tangential or irrelevant. Josh Freeman, as the QB of the team, should have never been benched based upon poor play in a few games. But, he should have been benched if he had conduct detrimental to the team.Schiano's reputation was drug through the mud. It led to a snowball effect that I believe ultimately cost him his job. He was portrayed on PR as a monster and tyrant. So, while Scott protected Freeman, he may have played at least a small role in Schiano's fate. His saying "my bad" after the fact didn't change his role. I believe that Schiano, like Saban and Spurrier (two unsuccessful NFL coaches), would have been a fairly hot college coaching name now, if not for his name being dragged through the mud by a number of NFL reporters. It's funny how once PR quit trashing him, so did the national analysts.What if the true story is something like... Schiano discovered Freeman had a drug problem and tried to get him help. Because Schiano had no confidence that Freeman could overcome the problem, he was hesitant to throw all his support behind Freeman. Freeman probably stayed sober for a period of time, but then relapsed. Once he relapsed, Schiano had no choice but to move on. If that were the true story, and if it would have come out back then, might the national reporters have seen Schiano as a good guy who fell victim to the terrible luck of being stuck with a "Franchise QB" who was a drug addict? I mean, that's quite a hurtle for a head coach to overcome. If the story is anything like what I just described, journalistic integrity would demand for Scott to say something in order for the record to be put straight(and Schiano's tarnished reputation to be restored.I'm sorry... but it is a big deal. It has affected people's careers. Again, journalistic integrity dictates that the reporter tells the whole story, especially if they misreported it to begin with. That's why I can only assume that my post at the beginning of this thread is the actual scenario we are looking at here. I like Scott's writing in general, and I like PR. In this particular case, Scott has actually placed himself into the story. That was really a poor decision.
Good post and good points.But, the more I think about this, I look back over the years and I think Free and Scott are/were friends, or at least pretty friendly. Putting aside "Team Freeman" abusing that relationship over the benching, the more I think about it the more I think Freeman approached Scott confidentially for help, outside of the realm of QB/Reporter and before it became "knowledge" of his "personal problems". Not only could it explain the tone of his initial reporting; that is he thought Schiano was not helping but taking advantage of his problems, but it explains his "sworn to secrecy" quote. Scott's problem is that he has exacerbated the situation but trying to contain it, yet at the same time admitting he knows a lot more than he is reporting. Drip, drip, dripping info out there never works.
VIN and everyone...Just to be clear, the only reason any of this came back up was because Scott brought it back up yesterday in the chat. It's not like I woke up yesterday and randomly decided to post something. I hardly ever post anything, but the way that Scott has handled himself on the Freeman matter has more than invited speculation.
Why? He is sworn to secrecy. It is a breathe of fresh air to see a reporter learn something off the record, and not use it to "break a story". Hats off to Scott!
"Is this thread for real? It's called "off-the-record." That means that the source provided info with the stipulation that it not be disclosed."Off the record has to do with protecting the source, not the story itself. In other words, no journalist I have ever heard of would say, "I have been sworn to secrecy" over a story. They say that sort of thing all the time when it comes to not revealing a source - but never in regards to protecting a story. There is simply no such thing as "protecting a story." In this particular case, Freeman's personal difficulties were the story. They were not tangential or irrelevant. Josh Freeman, as the QB of the team, should have never been benched based upon poor play in a few games. But, he should have been benched if he had conduct detrimental to the team.Schiano's reputation was drug through the mud. It led to a snowball effect that I believe ultimately cost him his job. He was portrayed on PR as a monster and tyrant. So, while Scott protected Freeman, he may have played at least a small role in Schiano's fate. His saying "my bad" after the fact didn't change his role. I believe that Schiano, like Saban and Spurrier (two unsuccessful NFL coaches), would have been a fairly hot college coaching name now, if not for his name being dragged through the mud by a number of NFL reporters. It's funny how once PR quit trashing him, so did the national analysts.What if the true story is something like... Schiano discovered Freeman had a drug problem and tried to get him help. Because Schiano had no confidence that Freeman could overcome the problem, he was hesitant to throw all his support behind Freeman. Freeman probably stayed sober for a period of time, but then relapsed. Once he relapsed, Schiano had no choice but to move on. If that were the true story, and if it would have come out back then, might the national reporters have seen Schiano as a good guy who fell victim to the terrible luck of being stuck with a "Franchise QB" who was a drug addict? I mean, that's quite a hurtle for a head coach to overcome. If the story is anything like what I just described, journalistic integrity would demand for Scott to say something in order for the record to be put straight(and Schiano's tarnished reputation to be restored.I'm sorry... but it is a big deal. It has affected people's careers. Again, journalistic integrity dictates that the reporter tells the whole story, especially if they misreported it to begin with. That's why I can only assume that my post at the beginning of this thread is the actual scenario we are looking at here. I like Scott's writing in general, and I like PR. In this particular case, Scott has actually placed himself into the story. That was really a poor decision.
Man, that is a crock of shit. Journalistic integrity demands a journalist set the record straight not "tell the whole story". Lmao at that transparent stretch. Some of you guys are nothing more than voyeurs others - like Doc - are just crying crocodile tears. The nature of Freeman's alleged "personal issues" has NOTHING to do with the story of whether Schiano was to blame. It does the story full justice for PR to acknowledge they got the story wrong relying on sources. The rest is just nonsense.
Man, that is a crock of **CENSORED**. Journalistic integrity demands a journalist set the record straight not "tell the whole story". Lmao at that transparent stretch. Some of you guys are nothing more than voyeurs others - like Doc - are just crying crocodile tears. The nature of Freeman's alleged "personal issues" has NOTHING to do with the story of whether Schiano was to blame. It does the story full justice for PR to acknowledge they got the story wrong relying on sources. The rest is just nonsense.
The biggest problem here is Scott is pulling the dogs tail by dropping teaser hints and not following up on it. As everyone knows, if you pull the dogs tail often enough it will turn and bite you.
My guess is the team knew Freeman was playing under the influence and kept playing him. Just a guess. Seems to me the only reason SR couldn't let it out is because it's info directly damaging to the TEAM. He loses the team, his job is then in jeopardy. I think someone high up in the team has sworn him to secrecy. Freeman is gone, Dom is gone, Schiano is gone. The only reason for not spilling the beans, is that the one who swore him to secrecy is still here. The team would be railed if it leaked that they knowingly played someone under the influence. But again, that's just a theory. I do think the reason for SR's flip flop is due to this info. Good for him for changing his tune accordingly.
The problems with all these comments on SR holding the secret and it being an addiction is....#1 It's not just SR holding onto the info, there are a great number of people in a media that were dropping hints long before SR or the team imploded.#2 The vast majority of the media couldn't care less about who they hurt releasing a story, it's all about them getting the scoop so why are they so afraid of releasing this? It's not like the don't out addicts all the time, this is something that would cause a massive backlash towards whoever breaks it.
It's obvious Scott's protecting Vin :P
Good job SR!1 great job of getting it right. No problem in saying I made a mistakeWe all do. Thanks to all PR staff for their reporting, I've been a reader along timeand enjoy the people and posters IMHO Thanks
Man, that is a crock of **CENSORED**. Journalistic integrity demands a journalist set the record straight not "tell the whole story". Lmao at that transparent stretch. Some of you guys are nothing more than voyeurs others - like Doc - are just crying crocodile tears. The nature of Freeman's alleged "personal issues" has NOTHING to do with the story of whether Schiano was to blame. It does the story full justice for PR to acknowledge they got the story wrong relying on sources. The rest is just nonsense.
The biggest problem here is Scott is pulling the dogs tail by dropping teaser hints and not following up on it. As everyone knows, if you pull the dogs tail often enough it will turn and bite you.
The biggest problem is the readers. Illustration: Right now the reporting is Free has "personal issues" that were at the root of the Bucs letting Free go. Now, hypothetically speaking, what's the difference if the "personal issue" is drugs versus alcohol?Answer: zero, nada, zilch ....Readers arguing that SR needs to reveal the nature of Free's alleged "personal issue" to . . . adjust the scales of justice, so to speak . . is laughable . . . transparent. . . . the story was "Schaino bad" versus "Free bad." PR reported initially "Schiano bad" and has since corrected to "Free bad." End of story . . . . one would think
The biggest problem is the readers. Illustration: Right now the reporting is Free has "personal issues" that were at the root of the Bucs letting Free go.
Vin, respectfully, Scott went quite a bit further with his language on Friday than simply saying Free had "personal problems."
I know what really went down, but am sworn to secrecy. Schiano and the Bucs organization could have burned Freeman to the ground with what I know
Scott drew a lot more attention to the situation and himself with those very strong statements. Why not just say Free has "personal problems that I can't address."
