"SI.com: You went on social media to emphatically deny an NFL Network report that you were contacted by Kansas City for the GM job. Do you stand by your response, and if you do, what did you make of being the center of a report which you emphatically denied was untrue? Riddick: I 100 percent stand by my response. Look, there are is an element to reporting/news breaking that is strictly source-based/source-reliant. We all know it. We all get it. When you go on record and say “emphatically” that someone has been contacted by a team and that an interview is being set up/etc…, then you better make sure your sources are correct. That’s all. In this case, the reports from NFL Network were deadass wrong, and that is the long/short of it. Just be right about it. And, if all else fails, ask ME, since I am the best source."
While Rapoport was not named, this is the report to which Riddick was referring:
This was Riddick’s response at the time:
An NFL Network spokesperson declined to make Rapoport available for comment.
There are various dynamics at play here. Last week, Peter Vecsey disclosed that he did not reach out to the Lakers, Pacers, or NBA before reporting that the Lakers were being investigated in a tampering probe, because he was of the belief that they’d leak it to someone else and he’d lose the scoop.
Maybe Rapoport worried that if he reached out Riddick would give the news to an ESPN colleague? Maybe the Chiefs were indeed interested in Riddick, who worked with Andy Reid in Philadelphia, but they hadn’t reached out yet and Rapoport (or the source) misinterpreted how far along things were?
Because we’ve only heard from Riddick and Rapoport hasn’t made further statements about his reporting, we may never know what really happened when Rapoport said that the Chiefs had contacted Louis Riddick for the vacant GM opening.
UPDATE (12:30 ET): An NFL spokesperson tells The Big Lead in an email, “We stand by Ian’s reporting on this story 100 percent.”