OutKick87%

Mike Vrabel pulled telling move with his wife before Taylor Swift wedding, and it's a bad look 83%

By Zach Dean87%

7/4/2026, 1:00:57 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Availability Heuristic, and Recency Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 46.7% saturation with 216 hits. Analysis detected 1,236 faulty-reasoning hits from 463 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 74.7% and a BS Rank of 83% (3,609 of 20,368 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 82.30% of the article peer group.

For some reason, Mike Vrabel and his wife were invited to Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce's wedding. 
Why? 
I have no idea. 
Frankly, it seems like everyone was invited to this thing. 
At this point, I'm a little offended I wasn't invited. 
It seems like the entire planet was in attendance Friday at Madison Square Garden. 
I can't even imagine the bill. 
Makes me queasy just to think about. 
Anyway, back to Vrabel ... 
He was out and about with his wife, Jen, for the first real time since the Dianna Russini scandal erupted in the spring, and it was ... weird. 
Awkward. 
Uncomfortable? 
SPORTS WORLD TURNS OUT FOR TRAVIS KELCE AND TAYLOR SWIFT'S MADISON SQUARE GARDEN WEDDING FESTIVITIES 
Yeah, let's go with uncomfortable. 
One move in particular really grabbed the internet's attention. 
As the two were on the way to the ceremony, Vrabel entered their car first and did NOT hold the door for Jen. 
Just opened the door and dove right in on his own, leaving his wife to fend for herself behind him. 
It looks completely innocuous at first glance, but ... folks noticed. 
And buddy, they weren't thrilled: 
Mike Vrabel had a tough spring, to say the least 
I could go on and on. 
Seriously, it's a bloodbath right now. 
Folks are fired up over this disgusting breach of etiquette. 
It makes sense, if you ask me. 
Mike Vrabel is coming off maybe the worst offseason of all time, and everyone is on high alert right now. 
In March, the hotel pictures with former Athletic NFL insider Dianna Russini leaked, and everything started to crumble. 
Russini was canned. 
Vrabel entered rehab. 
The New York Times dropped a 5,000 word story absolutely ripping its former employee. 
Just last week, the bodycam footage leaked from a Russini traffic stop earlier this year, and it was maybe the most embarrassing thing I've ever seen. 
It's just been one thing after another for these two, and I fear it's only gonna get worse from here. 
The Times still hasn't released its finding from the investigation into Russini. 
That's coming, folks. 
It ain't gonna be good. 
CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM 
SIGN UP TO GET THE LATEST SPORTS NEWS 
Vrabel, meanwhile, has really only spoken a handful of times since the story broke. 
That's going to change in about three weeks when training camp starts and he's in front of the media every single day. 
Perhaps some simple PR training is needed before that? 
If this video if any indication, it probably wouldn't hurt. 
Always hold the door for your lady, fellas. 
That's Gentleman 101 stuff. 
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 3.9%Fox Nation: 4.1%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 0.7%Fox Nation: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 20.1%Zach Dean: 4.9%Fox Nation: 3.6%Availability Heuristic20.1%This article: 5.2%Zach Dean: 0.9%Fox Nation: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic5.2%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 0.7%Fox Nation: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 6.9%Zach Dean: 2.8%Fox Nation: 3.1%Overconfidence Bias6.9%This article: 8.0%Zach Dean: 4.9%Fox Nation: 12.0%Framing Effect8.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 0.4%Fox Nation: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 1.7%Zach Dean: 1.0%Fox Nation: 0.9%Status Quo Bias1.7%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 0.4%Fox Nation: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.6%Zach Dean: 2.1%Fox Nation: 2.8%Optimism Bias0.6%This article: 5.4%Zach Dean: 1.9%Fox Nation: 1.7%Pessimism Bias5.4%This article: 46.7%Zach Dean: 11.4%Fox Nation: 10.9%Negativity Bias46.7%This article: 1.5%Zach Dean: 1.1%Fox Nation: 2.7%Self-Serving Bias1.5%This article: 1.9%Zach Dean: 1.8%Fox Nation: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error1.9%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 0.4%Fox Nation: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.9%Zach Dean: 2.1%Fox Nation: 3.2%In-Group Bias0.9%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 1.2%Fox Nation: 2.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 4.3%Fox Nation: 2.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 0.5%Fox Nation: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 18.6%Zach Dean: 2.8%Fox Nation: 1.4%Recency Bias18.6%This article: 2.4%Zach Dean: 0.8%Fox Nation: 0.5%Primacy Effect2.4%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 3.8%Fox Nation: 2.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 1.0%Fox Nation: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.9%Zach Dean: 2.0%Fox Nation: 5.1%Appeal to Authority3.9%This article: 1.1%Zach Dean: 1.6%Fox Nation: 1.8%False Dilemma1.1%This article: 4.3%Zach Dean: 0.7%Fox Nation: 1.1%Slippery Slope4.3%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 16.2%Zach Dean: 9.0%Fox Nation: 6.1%Hasty Generalization16.2%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 1.0%Fox Nation: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 10.8%Zach Dean: 1.7%Fox Nation: 0.8%Bandwagon10.8%This article: 12.7%Zach Dean: 7.2%Fox Nation: 7.8%Appeal to Emotion12.7%This article: 2.2%Zach Dean: 0.6%Fox Nation: 1.3%Begging the Question2.2%This article: 14.3%Zach Dean: 2.4%Fox Nation: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)14.3%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.6%Zach Dean: 0.3%Fox Nation: 0.6%Burden of Proof5.6%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 14.3%Zach Dean: 3.5%Fox Nation: 2.3%Anecdotal14.3%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 18.1%Zach Dean: 2.2%Fox Nation: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)18.1%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 0.6%Fox Nation: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 1.9%Zach Dean: 0.4%Fox Nation: 0.2%Special Pleading1.9%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 21.4%Zach Dean: 2.3%Fox Nation: 1.7%Unattributed Quote21.4%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 1.1%Fox Nation: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 10.4%Zach Dean: 19.6%Fox Nation: 6.2%Biased Writer Voice10.4%This article: 1.7%Zach Dean: 2.4%Fox Nation: 1.4%Indoctrination1.7%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Dean: 2.3%Fox Nation: 3.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 8.2%Zach Dean: 1.9%Fox Nation: 1.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…8.2%

463 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.