Retired NFL safety Justin Simmons fired off a series of posts on X criticizing ESPN's Monday Night Football broadcast for discussing Broncos linebacker Jonathon Cooper's felony domestic violence charges, then undermined his own argument by comparing the coverage to the Mike Vrabel affair.
During the Broncos-Chiefs Monday night game, ESPN announcer Joe Buck noted that Cooper was absent from Denver's lineup because the NFL had placed him on the exempt list. Cooper faces a November 10 trial on four charges, including felony second-degree assault by strangulation of his former girlfriend. He was arrested on suspicion of two counts of domestic violence and one count of criminal mischief in Colorado, according to the Douglas County Sheriff's Office. Cooper initially apologized, then retained counsel and pleaded not guilty.
Buck's on-air mention was brief and factual, a standard broadcast explanation for why a rostered player was missing from the field. Simmons saw it differently. OutKick senior NFL writer Armando Salguero reported that Simmons took to X to unload on the entire production crew.
"That's absolute bs btw. Shame on all of the production on Monday night football and the crew. You're supposed to call the game. Coop isn't playing the game and isn't on the sidelines. The MNF crew is paid to cover THE GAME not the players who are not playing or even at the game."
Simmons's complaint boils down to a simple demand: talk about football, not off-field legal trouble. On its face, that sounds reasonable. Plenty of fans tune in to watch a game, not a courtroom recap. But the argument falls apart the moment you look at what Cooper is actually accused of, and what Simmons chose to compare it to.
Simmons, who earned second-team All-Pro honors four times across a nine-year NFL career, did not stop at one post. After pushback flooded his replies, he doubled down in a follow-up.
"I have hella people in my comments (mainly Pats fans) saying an affair is not the same as an ALLEGED conviction. Which is true. However, last time I checked MNF or any network hosting a game is supposed to talk about just that THE GAME not players who aren't there or even playing."
Read that second post carefully. Simmons conceded the central objection against his own argument, that an alleged affair between two consenting adults is not the same as felony strangulation charges, and then kept arguing anyway. He acknowledged the distinction, waved it off, and retreated to a procedural complaint about broadcast content.
The comparison he drew was to the situation involving New England Patriots head coach Mike Vrabel and former reporter Dianna Russini. That controversy generated tabloid-level attention, and NBC included it in an illustrated timeline of the Patriots' offseason during New England's season opener against the Seattle Seahawks. Simmons complained that ESPN was willing to discuss Cooper's legal situation on air but that the Vrabel-Russini matter was not similarly covered during a game broadcast.
Salguero pointed out the obvious gap in Simmons's reasoning. Vrabel has been put before the court of public opinion over the relationship, but there are no allegations of abuse that will be heard in a court of law. Cooper, by contrast, sits on the NFL's exempt list, suspended from all team activities, while awaiting trial on charges that include strangling a woman.
Those are not comparable situations by any honest measure. One involves personal conduct that generated gossip. The other involves a criminal defendant facing a felony trial date. A broadcaster explaining why a player is missing from the field is not sensationalism. It is the most basic function of play-by-play: tell the audience what they are seeing and why.
Simmons described Cooper's charges as "ALLEGED", and they are. Cooper has pleaded not guilty, and he is entitled to the presumption of innocence in court. But the NFL did not wait for a verdict before suspending him. The league placed Cooper on the exempt list, which is itself a newsworthy roster move that directly affects the game Simmons wanted Buck to focus on. A missing starter is the game.
Salguero, who described Simmons as "a bright individual of great character," noted that the retired safety appeared to have been triggered by loyalty to a former teammate. That instinct is understandable. Standing by a friend facing serious accusations is a human response, not a character flaw.
But social media does not grade on a curve for good intentions. Simmons posted a public argument built on a comparison he himself admitted did not hold up, then asked his audience to ignore the distinction and focus on broadcast etiquette instead. The internet did what the internet does, it pointed out the hole in his logic, and he kept digging.
Cooper's trial is set for November 10. Until then, the charges against him, felony second-degree assault by strangulation, among others, are a matter of public record. Any network covering a Broncos game will mention them if Cooper's absence is relevant to the broadcast. That is not a media conspiracy. That is journalism doing its job, however imperfectly.
When you demand that broadcasters ignore a felony domestic violence case to protect a friend's reputation, you are not defending the game. You are asking the public to look the other way, and in 2024, that ask lands harder than it used to.
