Patriots Rumor Is Mike’s job security in danger? (Vrabel + Russini)

[tuckeverlasting]

So what all this REALLY means is that if it is confirmed that the 2 have been cheating on their SO's, the Pats's can legitimately be called "cheaters"...oh i know it's not a scandal involving players but you KNOW the usual assbags will be calling them that.....

this started 6 yrs ago in tenn and i'm sure kraft felt like he knew vrabel and didn't look into his private life and marriage so i would put this more on the titans. dollars to donuts they knew and saved it. maybe owners are gonna need to look a little deeper into the private lives of coaching candidates because i'm sure this is not an isolated incident.

 

[raduray]

What the ****, guys (and gals) we over 1000 posts of pure prurient interest that shouldn't have exceeded 250. I have previously been ashamed to have contributed 1 of those posts so long ago I can't remember what I said. Hopefully it was something along the lines of crying "ENOUGH already" 30 pages or so ago.

Between the "moralists" and "defenders" all you are doing is keep repeating the same points OVER and over again, long after you've asked and answered your original points. Whatever the truth is, this is essentially a PRIVATE matter concerning people in the public eye. A matter that people NOT in the public eye can speculate, moralize, and defend so their own sad lives can seem more relevant and interesting. It's sad and the fact that it has essentially been the crux of this board's interest for the past 2 months is frustrating to me. I come here to discuss FOOTBALL stuff, not TMZ gossip. Christ, the ****ing Daily Mail gets cited like it's the Gospel truth when it has been proved since that Tomlin thing never happened.

If we are going o keep going on about this ****, I should be allowed to keep informing you every time Trump lies to the American public. At any rate I'm now going to await the feeling of shame wash over me as I have now doubled my own sad contributions to this colossal waste of time

Sex sells. Sex scandals sells even more.

 

[sb1]

Dianna Russini giving Mike Vrabel her COTY vote (which he would have still won anyway without it)

Maye losing NFL MVP by one point where Dan Orlovsky voted for his best friend Matt Stafford

 

[sb1]

If this source (who claims to be an ex NFL scout) is legit - Belichick was with her too?

 

[sb1]

Another BB tidbit from this guy... "Paying for it"... as in Bunny is a paid escort?

 

[n1997y]

Another BB tidbit from this guy... "Paying for it"... as in Bunny is a paid escort?

Guys are always paying for it, one way or another. Trophy wives aren’t cheap.

If you don’t realize marriage is primarily a financial relationship you’ve never gone through a divorce.

 

[DarrylS]

Guys are always paying for it, one way or another. Trophy wives aren’t cheap.

If you don’t realize marriage is primarily a financial relationship you’ve never gone through a divorce.

Fortunately when I went through mine her atty. did not go after my pension (I was 13 years into it). OTOH I gave up all claims to my former home. I think I got the better part of the deal.
I know have friends in their late 70's who refuse to retire as they have to give their ex's 50% when they retire, and none of them are "trophy wives".

 

[EddardSnow67]

It's almost like marriage is a pointless social construct and doesn't really mean anything.

 

[XLIX]

Another BB tidbit from this guy... "Paying for it"... as in Bunny is a paid escort?

I believe Belichick is "paying for it" in the sense that all men pay for it, probably with a little bit of Sugar Daddy mixed in.

I do not believe for a single second that he took the UNC job to "afford" her. The guy got 9 figures from the Patriots, for Pete's sake.

 

[XLIX]

It's almost like marriage is a pointless social construct and doesn't really mean anything.

It wasn't always that way but yes... it's almost like the institution of marriage has been cheapened over the past 20 years or so....

 

[Clonamery]

It's almost like marriage is a pointless social construct and doesn't really mean anything.

Almost like the meaning of human being.

 

[EddardSnow67]

It wasn't always that way but yes... it's almost like the institution of marriage has been cheapened over the past 20 years or so....

I think the meaning has and will always be personal. I'm referring to the institution rather than the underlying sentiment when I say it's pointless. I've been with my current girlfriend for over ten years and I consider us to be "married" in that we're committed to each other on that level. We just don't have any use for formality.

 

[Bill Lee]

If you don’t realize marriage is primarily a financial relationship you’ve never gone through a divorce.

Pretty fair. I didn't feel that way during it all, nor right after the divorce, but a few weeks/months later looking back on I said OMG, that could have been a disaster financially. I'm lucky my ex had a hatred of lawyers and we didn't have kids or a house to argue about. I dodged one massive bullet.

Later on I had a friend who was a lawyer and said to me "You'll survive the first divorce, it's the second one that wipes you out". Not sure why he said that because a lot of people get wiped out on the first one, but it did make an impression on me.

Fortunately when I went through mine her atty. did not go after my pension (I was 13 years into it). OTOH I gave up all claims to my former home. I think I got the better part of the deal.
I know have friends in their late 70's who refuse to retire as they have to give their ex's 50% when they retire, and none of them are "trophy wives".

Lucky on that too. We both had 401k accounts with more or less equal funding so we just kept our own. We split the bank account. I let her have the newer/better car. I got off wicked easy.

Yet knowing that I got off easy made me very cautious going forward. I didn't want to tempt fate. I more or less quit while I was ahead.

 

[Bill Lee]

I think the meaning has and will always be personal. I'm referring to the institution rather than the underlying sentiment when I say it's pointless. I've been with my current girlfriend for over ten years and I consider us to be "married" in that we're committed to each other on that level. We just don't have any use for formality.

The point is, the lasting effect of marriage in many cases is the legal entanglement it creates, which for many ends up being a lot more than a formality.

You probably should check your jurisdiction's laws on common-law marriage. It's not as common as it once was, but lots of people found out they were legally considered to be married after a certain period of cohabitation.

 

[Sect140]

Another BB tidbit from this guy... "Paying for it"... as in Bunny is a paid escort?

Maybe Dawg4L3309 should do some research before posting things, if he did maybe he would know Bill got divorced in 2006 and he started seeing the 20 yer old in 2023, he leaves out the 16 years of dating Linda. But why would we want facts to get in the way of a juicy story.

 

[BennyBledsoe]

About marriage... one of the biggest problems is just how much life and lifestyle has changed. It used to be, at least, considered typical to get married in your early 20s.

Go back a few hundred years and there was just not as much time spent together because of some type of labor needing doing. Either employment or household. And death shortened many lifespans. Divorce just didn't happen because it really wasn't even considered an option, for various reasons.

Now, couples have more time together. You find out more about each other as time goes on. Assuming no divorce, you could be with someone for 40-50 years, with at least a decade of that without even a job to break up the time.

And that CAN be a problem. People just aren't the same at age 50 as they are at age 22. What you valued in a relationship then may not be the same as what you value now.

 

[Bill Lee]

About marriage... one of the biggest problems is just how much life and lifestyle has changed. It used to be, at least, considered typical to get married in your early 20s.

Go back a few hundred years and there was just not as much time spent together because of some type of labor needing doing. Either employment or household. And death shortened many lifespans. Divorce just didn't happen because it really wasn't even considered an option, for various reasons.

Now, couples have more time together. You find out more about each other as time goes on. Assuming no divorce, you could be with someone for 40-50 years, with at least a decade of that without even a job to break up the time.

And that CAN be a problem. People just aren't the same at age 50 as they are at age 22. What you valued in a relationship then may not be the same as what you value now.

Interesting discussion.

Me and my cousin were born in the early 1960s. His mom was an Irish Catholic immigrant. When we were in our late teens my cousin had a lot of girlfriends coming and going. I asked her back then if she thought that was a problem. She said no, he needs to get it out of his system while he's young. She also said he shouldn't get married till he's at least 30.

I found all this pretty shocking, which is why I remember it 40 or so years later. But she had a point...

In my mother's generation she said most kids were looking for spouses in high school. That was the social norm for working class immigrants, I'd say. By the time I was in high school we had gone through the woman's liberation movement of the 1960s and a lot of things had changed. I can't think of a single kid who got married shortly after graduation, yet most of my mom's generation did just that.

I remember thinking as I was in my late teens and early 20s, that each and every year I was a different person. I couldn't imagine a marriage surviving all the changes I was going through. Me and my partner were 29 when we got married, and it turns out we still had a lot of growing to do, but not as much as before.

So, maybe my auntie from Ireland had it all figured out...

 

[BennyBledsoe]

Interesting discussion.

.............

So, maybe my auntie from Ireland had it all figured out...

Surprisingly progressive, but perhaps borne of experience

One idea that had a little bit of traction in the '70s was the idea of contract marriages. These would allow effectively a trial period with a no harm, no foul way out after a specified term. At the end of the term, you could decide on another contract or go for the big lifetime commit. Gene Roddenberry even wrote about them in his 1979 novelization of The Motion Picture. Likely as a result of a miserable first marriage, and then his much more successful marriage to Majel Barrett (Nurse Chapel in the original series).