Trouble in Patriot Paradise?

Search
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
99,709
Tokens
[h=1]Brady, Belichick, Kraft blast report of Patriots rift: 'Unsubstantiated,' 'inaccurate'[/h]
What the Patriots really need is more motivation while seeking their sixth Super Bowl trophy under Bill Belichick. They appear to have gotten it in the form of a lengthy ESPN story from Seth Wickersham, detailing turmoil among Belichick, Tom Brady and Robert Kraft, because, just like the last time the world was questioning them, they sound angry.


The Pats issued a joint statement from Kraft, Belichick and Brady, lashing back at the ESPN article and calling it and other reports "unsubstantiated, highly exaggerated or flat out inaccurate."


"For the past 18 years, the three of us have enjoyed a very good and productive working relationship. In recent days, there have been multiple media reports that have speculated theories that are unsubstantiated, highly exaggerated or flat out inaccurate," the statement reads. "The three of us share a common goal. We look forward to the enormous challenge of competing in the postseason and the opportunity to work together in the future, just as we have for the past 18 years. It is unfortunate that there is even a need for us to respond to these fallacies. As our actions have shown, we stand united."


<article class="MediaCard MediaCard--mediaForward customisable-border" data-scribe="component:card" dir="ltr"> View image on Twitter


</article>
New England Patriots @Patriots

Joint statement from Patriots Chairman and CEO Robert Kraft, Head Coach Bill Belichick and quarterback Tom Brady:
<time class="dt-updated" datetime="2018-01-05T15:55:36+0000" pubdate="" title="Time posted: January 05, 2018 15:55:36 (UTC)">10:55 AM - Jan 5, 2018</time>

If this sounds familiar, it should. The Patriots previously went aggressive and scorched earth in response to the Deflategate claims. After initially agreeing to the league's punishment for Brady, Kraft responded with aggression and said that Brady did not get his due process in the investigation.


<ins class=" bidtellect-native-ad" data-pid="890993183" style="text-decoration: none;"></ins>


The Patriots also blasted the Wells Report when it came out, with Kraft saying there was no hard evidence.


But this is different too, because the story from Wickersham, who is a trusted and well-sourced reporter on these larger-scale NFL stories, is technically a theory. There is no smoking gun for the Patriots simply melting down or having so much in-fighting that ownership is going to blow things up, or that Belichick/Brady are just going to walk away after 2017 is over.
Clearly, though, there is some smoke here. The trouble with Brady's trainer Alex Guerrero led Belichick to ban him from the sidelines and the team plane/facilities (outside of the TB12 office he maintains there). Ignoring that tension would be foolish.


The trade of Jimmy Garoppolo, who has looked superb since arriving in San Francisco for just a second-round pick back to the Pats, probably doesn't make life easier on anyone involved here either.


<ins class=" bidtellect-native-ad" data-pid="890993325" style="text-decoration: none;"></ins>


But it's very possible that the Pats are simply dealing with the normal course of living in a dynasty. Pat Riley called it the "Disease of More." The Patriots have been immune for almost 20 years now, but Brady and Belichick are both heading into the back nine of their respective Hall of Fame careers.


Or maybe the Patriots just got handed a platter full of fuel for another Super Bowl run. Don't expect to see "friendly Brady" or "happy Belichick" in the next few weeks.
<figure class=" img"> </figure> Will Brinson CBS Sports Senior Writer


follow Will Brinson joined CBS Sports in 2010 and enters his seventh season covering the NFL for CBS. He previously wrote for FanHouse along with myriad other Internet sites. A North Carolina native who lives... Full Bio
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
44,409
Tokens
You said there was zero chance pats would trade him and that Brady wouldn't be the starting QB this year

you are correct.
i assumed a team that made correct decisions time after time would not pull a cleveland move and make one of the worst trades in nfl history.
but the owner let his heart get in the way and would not allow the coach do do what hes always done in the past which is get rid of players before its too late.

this will go down as one of the worst trades in nfl history
 

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
31,503
Tokens
Why would NE get rid of Brady before this next offseason if they thought Jimmy was the man? This upcoming offseason was the fork in the road if they were going to get rid of Brady. No sooner than that.
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
44,409
Tokens
i probably have about 500 post on this forum touting jimmy g even before he was drafted.
i wish the saints would have traded cooks for him to be honest.

we are talking about a very elite qb folks.
not a game manager.

his upside is possibly being the #1 qb in the entire league.

we not talking matt cassel here folks.

we talking mvp after mvp


and he just made the 49ers the team to beat in the nfc for a very long time
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
44,409
Tokens
Why would NE get rid of Brady before this next offseason if they thought Jimmy was the man? This upcoming offseason was the fork in the road if they were going to get rid of Brady. No sooner than that.

the right move was to let him go.

indy did
green bay did it
san fran did it

all hof qbs told to take a hike.


what if gb would have traded rodgers for a 2nd round pick?

how would that have turned out?
 

New member
Joined
Nov 25, 2017
Messages
45
Tokens
Im just talking more generally Im sure he’d love to win without Brady if the opportunity presented itself.

NE couldn’t keep JimmyG without giving up Brady and I doubt B.B. had any desire to do that. This idea that Kraft was like “deal jimmy bro” and BB didn’t want to is highly embellished.

They couldn’t keep both, not sure why people don’t understand that.

It may be embellished, but I mean, BB wanted to keep Jimmy G. And he knew that this was the time to continue the franchise. I don't think he was dying to deal Brady but someone had to go and I think really think he was prepared to deal Brady, let him go, etc...
 

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
31,503
Tokens
the right move was to let him go.

indy did
green bay did it
san fran did it

all hof qbs told to take a hike.


what if gb would have traded rodgers for a 2nd round pick?

how would that have turned out?

What does this have to do with my post? You're being bot-like on this subject. Even if the right move was to let him go, it would be in 3 months, not 7 months ago. All I was saying.

As far as those examples, I'm not opposed to the idea that you will be proven right in the long-term, but none of those examples are really apples to apples with the Pats/Brady/Jimmy situation. They just aren't.
 

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
31,503
Tokens
It may be embellished, but I mean, BB wanted to keep Jimmy G. And he knew that this was the time to continue the franchise. I don't think he was dying to deal Brady but someone had to go and I think really think he was prepared to deal Brady, let him go, etc...

Yeah, if you refer to my post #39, that's how I feel about it. I don't think the Pats were cutting Tom Brady 3 months from now if it was up to BB or Kraft. I just don't see it. Especially once this season started and he was still playing at a high level.

There was a fork in the road and they chose Brady. Did Belichick want to choose Jimmy over him? We'll never know but I think that it just wasn't gonna happen to get rid of Brady. Belichick is ballsy but not that ballsy.

I mean there is really no precedent in American sports for a team to do what the Pats would be doing to get rid of Brady, no matter how old he is. MVP year this year, SB MVP last year, team still the favs to SB right now.

If Jimmy flopped a bit, it would look pretty bad. It's a lot more ballsy of a move than people think.
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
44,409
Tokens
What does this have to do with my post? You're being bot-like on this subject. Even if the right move was to let him go, it would be in 3 months, not 7 months ago. All I was saying.

As far as those examples, I'm not opposed to the idea that you will be proven right in the long-term, but none of those examples are really apples to apples with the Pats/Brady/Jimmy situation. They just aren't.


i dont see the difference

both teams had a hof 40 year old qb and both teams had a stud as backup.

one team made the correct move and the other team did not.

the team that made the correct move went on to make and win super bowls.

the team that made the incorrect move is about to have brian hoyer for qb looking at the jets and miami north of them in the standings.


and if kraft forced belichick to trade him against his will i would not be surprised if he quits at the end of the season.
 

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
31,503
Tokens
i dont see the difference

both teams had a hof 40 year old qb and both teams had a stud as backup.

one team made the correct move and the other team did not.

the team that made the correct move went on to make and win super bowls.

the team that made the incorrect move is about to have brian hoyer for qb looking at the jets and miami north of them in the standings.


and if kraft forced belichick to trade him against his will i would not be surprised if he quits at the end of the season.

It's not really apples to apples. Montana basically hadn't played in 2 years when SF dealt him to KC. After his elbow injury in '91 preseason, Young started for 2 years. So that was a no brainer.

Manning was coming off 4 neck surgeries and Luck was the best QB prospect to come into the league since Manning. Not to mention, Indy was on the downside at this point in time. Manning carried them to a 10-6 record the year before and them going 1-15 without him was reflective of a team that was at the end of an era. At 37 off a neck surgery vs Luck was a no brainer.

Favre/Rodgers is probably the closest example because GB had a really good 2007 season with Favre and their team was primed to contend for another few years with Rodgers under contract. But that was his best season in years and really came out of nowhere, GB had been a fringe playoff team for the previous 3-4 years. Favre at that point in his career was nowhere near the pedigree of Brady.


Now Brady is off a superbowl win, about to win MVP this year, shows limited signs of slowing down despite the fact he lost his best WR and best OL this year and Garapollo prior to being dealt by NE had 1.5 good starts. It just isn't really the same situation.

You can argue NE should've just cut Brady loose after this year, but it would be way, way more ballsy than any of those 3 moves you mentioned. And if it backfired because Jimmy struggled then it would be a major hit to NE. Brady is like a God and NE is a premiere team in the league, this isn't the Packers off an unexpectedly good season still choosing to go with Rodgers over Favre (which IIRC Favre was retiring then wanted to comeback and GB was like "nah we good bro", they didn't necessarily even choose him over Rodgers but that's besides the point)

And lastly, and this should be a no brainer but it is possible Belichick just isn't as into JimmyG as you are. When people have different talent evaluations of players, then what they think teams should do are going to be different.
 

Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
9,721
Tokens
you are correct.
i assumed a team that made correct decisions time after time would not pull a cleveland move and make one of the worst trades in nfl history.
but the owner let his heart get in the way and would not allow the coach do do what hes always done in the past which is get rid of players before its too late.

this will go down as one of the worst trades in nfl history
You are delusional
 

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
31,503
Tokens
Fwiw I don't see why people think Chop's opinion strictly regarding Garapollo/Brady is so bad. Forget his predictions on who NE would go with, but his basic premise that Jimmy is the future and NE should go with him over Brady could certainly wind up being correct.

The people who are way off are the people who think NE somehow screwed up trading Jimmy to SF and that they could keep both of QB's in the near term. That expiration date was coming in 2 months. If you make the decision "We're sticking with Brady" then trading Jimmy to SF for a high 2nd rd pick is a no brainer.

Sometimes there are forks in the road and you have to make tough decisions. This wasn't a "have your cake and eat it too" situation.
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
44,409
Tokens
My wager for Willie is sf wins more games then NE next season.
if they both win the same it’s a push

take it or leave it.

im willing to wager up to 3k.

if you agree to the bet and either or Brady/belichick leaves the bet is still on.


I honestly think this whole thing is about to blow up.

gonna have 2 huge over under bets next season.

sf over ne under
 
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
99,709
Tokens
Fwiw I don't see why people think Chop's opinion strictly regarding Garapollo/Brady is so bad. Forget his predictions on who NE would go with, but his basic premise that Jimmy is the future and NE should go with him over Brady could certainly wind up being correct.

The people who are way off are the people who think NE somehow screwed up trading Jimmy to SF and that they could keep both of QB's in the near term. That expiration date was coming in 2 months. If you make the decision "We're sticking with Brady" then trading Jimmy to SF for a high 2nd rd pick is a no brainer.

Sometimes there are forks in the road and you have to make tough decisions. This wasn't a "have your cake and eat it too" situation.

you don't think Jimmy was worth more than a 2nd rounder ??

what about before the season started ?
 

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
31,503
Tokens
you don't think Jimmy was worth more than a 2nd rounder ??

what about before the season started ?

What he's worth is subjective. When they dealt him, they got what they could. At the point of the trade deadline you aren't gonna make the decision "Well we wanna deal Jimmy but we only got offered a early 2nd rd pick, let's keep him for 3 months then let him be a FA". You're gonna take the pick. A high 2nd rd pick is a highly coveted pick.

They could've franchise tagged him in the upcoming offseason and dealt him then but that would've been a potential mess with teams knowing they aren't going to keep both him and Brady. They may have just had to rescind the tag eventually. And they likely want to have the threat/use of the tag for Malcolm Butler.

Maybe they could've got more during the last offseason, but they wanted to see if Brady would hit a wall in 2017, once he didn't they decided to keep Brady. Or they thought hold onto Jimmy into the season and a Sam Bradford to Minn or Carson Palmer to Oak type haul for Jimmy would materialize. But it didn't happen so they just dealt him to the highest bidder.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,116,491
Messages
13,533,956
Members
100,370
Latest member
deafmadden
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com