Strahan vs. Reporter

I got an eyewitness account of this mess from someone who knows the Giants lockeroom very well and has a connection at ESPN.

Gingerbread already covered a lot of this in her posts but there are a couple of details that I have not read here or heard reported.
ESPN sent Kelly Naqi to Giants Stadium for one reason and one reason only -- to confront Strahan and Burress about what Strahan said Monday on his weekly, PAID spot on WFAN with Joe Benigno.

She first approached Strahan as he was going into the players dining room and said she wanted to ask him about his comments. He told her, very politely I'm told, that he does his media sessions on Thursday and was not talking to her or anyone else about anything on Wednesday. He then went in to have lunch.
Naqi headed over to Burress' locker and waited for him to come out of the dining room, then read him the transcript of what Strahan had said on FAN. Burress rather calmly said if anyone had a problem with him, they should come directly to him to talk about it and not go criticizing teammates on the radio because "that's how I am. I wouldn't criticize a teammate to the media, I'd talk to the guy first."
He then went back into the dining room because he wanted to talk to Strahan about the whole thing. About 5 minutes later, a member of the Giants PR staff came out of the dining room and announced that Strahan would be out shortly to address the media.
That's when Strahan came out and went off on Naqi and the media in general.

I had heard Strahan's original comments Monday morning when Benigno asked him "And what about Burress quitting on that play on Pacman Jones' first interception. What was that all about?"
Strahan's reply was rather matter of act, that he wasn't at the game, saw it on TV, didn't know for sure what Paxico was thinking and would probably talk to him about it. Then he added the part about not quitting on a play "because when you do you're not just quitting on the play or yourself, you're quitting on us as a team." He also said he didn't think it was typical of Burress to quit on a play because he works hard and plays hard. It was hardly an inflammatory statement.
Take all of that for what it's worth.

The problem with Strahan was -- not unlike Tiki Barber -- he likes me a Mr. Media in New York, when things a are going his way. He also has a habit of saying things, mostly being honest, without thinking about the consequences and when confrotned about the consequences, he turns on the media he usually courts.
It went to an extreme on Wednesday becuase this is a team that is about to implode and blow up its season for good against the Cowboys on Sunday.

Also, Strahan was critical of Manning, Kiawanuka, the defense in general and the overall attitude of the team in his spot with Benigno on Monday.

 

The NFL might want to institute a mercy rule after the thrashing the Cowboys administer Sunday.

 

spnited's account seems spot on, from what I've heard.
John Branch has a pretty detailed piece here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/30/sports/football/30giants.html?ref=sports

A couple of things: if ESPN sent Kelly to follow up on that specific story, it seems like they were simply reacting to the obvious. Strahan's comments came out on Tuesday, when players were off (he said them Monday in his weekly radio gig), so Wednesday was the first day anyone was available to comment. I don't know if the beat reporters were chasing the story, but if they weren't, it might be because they knew Strahan's ritual was to talk on Thursdays. Reporters who pop in now and then aren't necessarily aware of that. He did "politely" explain that to her, but why should that prevent her from asking Burress for his response to the quotes? He had yet to address them, and there are an awful lot of Giants fans who wanted to know why he appeared to quit in Sunday's loss.

As for what Kelly or other reporters should have said when Strahan started ranting, if you saw the complete tape it's pretty clear she and a few others tried to derail him or get him to clarify his comments, and he simply became louder. He's a masterful manipulator, and it made no sense for Kelly or anyone else to attempt to shout over him.

 

I think it's safe to say, ginger, that the beat reporters would not have pursued this issue at all becuase they just viewed Strahan's comments on FAN as typical Strahan -- nothing more, nothing less.
And, besides, what he said is true. The problem is he now won't admit he said it and believed it.

 

There was nothing wrong with Strahan's comments -- they were fair and true -- but Coughlin has asked his players to keep criticism in house. Giants fans are cranky about a lot of things, Burress being at the top of the steaming heap. If nothing else, his response to Strahan and the general perception that he quits on some plays was a legitimate story. It probably would have been the lead story even if Strahan hadn't decided to be a bully.
He's the one who chose to make it uglier, not reporters.

 

Agree, 100%

 

Because, Elliotte, that's what these prima donas do.
Media whores like Strahan and Tiki often get a pass from the NY beat guys, so when they are questioned, they tend to go over the top in their response.

 

I think he was telling her to look him -- a man -- in the eyes. I really don't think this had anything to do with gender, simply because Strahan goes off on reporters of all shapes, sizes and circulations. He can be deadly charming one minute, deadly cruel the next.
He did praise Burress in his radio comments but in the next breath suggested he shouldn't be quitting on his teammates. They certainly were comments worth following up. The hot dog spittle gave the story another spin.

 

I'm pretty sure he would have used the same lines on John Clayton or Jeremy Schaap. But probably not on, say, Sean Salisbury.

 

Funny buck, that's kinda what his ex-wife implied during the ugly divorce hearings.