Le’Veon Bell responds to reports that his signing ruined Jets front office | TribLIVE.com
Tim Benz, Columnist

Le’Veon Bell responds to reports that his signing ruined Jets front office

Tim Benz
A disagreement over signing Le’Veon Bell was reportedly why the Jets blew up their front office on Wednesday.

Former Steelers running back Le’Veon Bell is responding to criticism that his signing is part of the reason the Jets blew up their front office Wednesday.

Sort of.

The Jets fired general manager Mike Maccagnan and vice president of player personnel Brian Heimerdinger on Wednesday. Head coach Adam Gase will take over as acting GM. It is reported by the New York Daily News that Gase would like Eagles vice president of player personnel Joe Douglas to take over the job.

Daily News Jets beat writer Manish Mehta went on to tweet that a disagreement over signing Bell was a major reason why there was a rift between Maccagnan and Gase.

You may be stunned to learn that the New York papers are having a good time with this.

And Bell isn’t exactly rushing to deny the story. Based on his tweets, he’s leaving some room open for the possibility that the story may be true.

Basically, Bell is trying to tamp down the story. Yet, he is not putting a pin in the balloon by any stretch. Those comments are a far cry from Bell saying he and Gase are in lockstep or on the same page.

Bell could’ve done just that in another follow-up tweet.

So what now? Some in the sports media business are forecasting a gloomy future for Bell and Gase.

Meanwhile, in Pittsburgh, while the Jets are holding the Giants’ beer, we’re holding our popcorn — just dying to watch this play out.

Tim Benz is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Tim at [email protected] or via Twitter. All tweets could be reposted. All emails are subject to publication unless specified otherwise.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.