ESPN is airing a 7 hour Brady marathon Sunday afternoon from 12-7. All of the SB wins, KC AFCCG, Ravens divisional game, and The Snow Game.
You sir, are a savage. And I mean that in the best possible way.This morning I stood before my closet, surveying the day’s choice of folded hoodies. The first one I saw, almost by fate, was my Patriots sweatshirt: navy blue, Flying Elvis across the chest. And I felt an unnatural pang deep inside, a choked heart’s throb; yes, this was my team, this was its logo, but it now represented something I was unfamiliar with. It no longer had a face. What did this mean? What was going to happen?
And my mind immediately performed a jump-cut to the past, to the barren windswept bleachers of Schaefer/Sullivan/Foxboro Stadium, cold aluminum benches devoid of human souls and beset by the miserable swirl of discarded hot dog wrappers. To TV blackouts and the more-than-occasional drunken brawl in the stands, when going to a game was a joyless Thunderdome of an exercise… impossible traffic snarls both pre- and post-game (even though there were only 30,000 people attending), punctuated by profanity and beer-fueled fisticuffs in between. All against a backdrop of generally awful, awful football.
Those ‘70s and ‘80s Patriots wore red uniforms, which were symbolic of red flags: warning signs which were now waving alarmingly in my face as I stood with my closet door open, trying to do something so simple as choosing what to wear for the day. Tom Brady was no longer a Patriot. Our Superman, our King Arthur, our Max Rockatansky was going to ply his trade elsewhere, never to wear the navy and silver of New England again. Gone, due to ego -- his or Bill Belichick’s -- or money, most likely a combination of both. The end of a golden sun-kissed era.
But then something occurred to me. Tom Brady never sat on those freezing aluminum benches 30 or 40 years ago. I doubt he ever gave more than a moment’s thought about the Patriots as he was growing up. He never died inside because he couldn’t watch his beloved Pats play due to a broadcast blackout. He rooted for the Niners, which was a hell of a lot like rooting for the Pats for the last two decades. What does he know about sports heartache and the loss of God? I love him and what he’s done for my team, and I thank him and wish him well because he’s absolutely earned that, but his departure never, ever gets to define how I feel about the Patriots now or going forward.
His exodus is a commentary on the passage of time. It means we’re getting older. All of us, including Tom. It means we have to say goodbye to the comfort of the familiar, a familiar which just so happens to have been wildly successful. But time always wins. We were going to say farewell at some point soon no matter what, but at least time gives us the wisdom to be more comfortable with the passage of time (I'm pretty sure this was a Hootie & the Blowfish song, by the way).
I have seen the lows. Hell, most of the kids I knew growing up didn't even root for the Pats, despite being from New England. And if they tell you they did, they're lying, they only jumped on when the getting was good. You see, being a Patriots fan sucked for most of time prior to the mid-'90s. Yet I still loved them anyway. I loved them with all my heart.
I grabbed that Pats hoodie out of my closet and put it on with pride.
That article is referencing a BR story that read like fan fiction. It pretty much seems to make stuff up that other sources have gone on record to contradict.Just saw this - maybe the story was never quite true but had a ring of truth to it all along:
Brady wanted out
That article is referencing a BR story that read like fan fiction. It pretty much seems to make stuff up that other sources have gone on record to contradict.
Brady, fueled by Belichick's desire to ditch him for Garoppolo, took the Patriots to two more Super Bowls, winning one.
Very true. He really knows how to motivate his guys.It was a masterful stroke by BB:
Though keep in mind by pulling Butler from playing against the Eagles, he sabotaged the game to make Brady look bad.Very true. He really knows how to motivate his guys.
Well, his job is to report what he hears. He's not the only one saying Brady didn't tell them what TB offered. If the entire idea was that Brady wanted to be FA, then I think it makes perfect sense to assume he goes out to gauge his market and tells them (or doesn't tell them should he so desire).From Rapaport: "The #Patriots likely would have done this contract, though Tom Brady never came to them with his desire to return. So there was no offer from NE. In the end, only the #Bucs and the #Chargers made offers. The #Raiders sat it out, as well, never offering Brady a deal."
Pinning it on Brady - if he had just come to the Patriots with his desire to return, the Pats would have given him what Tampa did.
I don't entirely buy that. Why give him the no-franchise clause in the last deal unless they were purposely giving him an out? Belichick (and to some extent maybe Kraft) wanted to put this decision in Brady's hands so that when the inevitable finally happened they could say it was his decision not theirs. And candidly, I'm not sure I blame them.From Rapaport: "The #Patriots likely would have done this contract, though Tom Brady never came to them with his desire to return. So there was no offer from NE. In the end, only the #Bucs and the #Chargers made offers. The #Raiders sat it out, as well, never offering Brady a deal."
Pinning it on Brady - if he had just come to the Patriots with his desire to return, the Pats would have given him what Tampa did.
I have been boycotting* Cigar City ever since you told us this story in the beer thread. Fuck those guys.Funny thing about Tampa; last time I was there for a Bruins game my brother and I went to the largest local brewery in town. We had Bruins gear on, and when we sat down the two bartenders started talking about how much they hated Brady and the Patriots and wouldn’t serve us. I bet those two guys are buying Brady 12 Bucs jerseys right now.
It's time to keep Grampy away from the microphones, once and for all.Kraft just can't keep his mouth shut. Just say thanks for the memories and move on.
View: https://twitter.com/MikeGiardi/status/1241010635011502080
Yeah--go read the article from Tampa in other thread, and this one--he wasn't ever coming back. Things could have been done earlier to maybe make that possible, but once this season ended there was no way.Here’s another Wickersham piece to make all your heads explode:
View: https://twitter.com/sethwickersham/status/1241695314630803456?s=21
It's not written clearly, but I took that as more general dissatisfaction with Belichick and his system than with the defense particularly. You're also kind of discounting the possibility of a middle ground here. That 2017 team had a great offense and a trash defense. 2019 had a great defense and a trash offense. Neither extreme is a great formula.It seemed like as his career with NE wound down, Brady was only going to be happy with both great offensive talent around him AND a great defense. Well Tom...I mean...come on man.
With each article, the easier it is dealing with Brady leaving. Wish #12 the best in Tampa. I'm looking forward to Stidham's development.It's not written clearly, but I took that as more general dissatisfaction with Belichick and his system than with the defense particularly. You're also kind of discounting the possibility of a middle ground here. That 2017 team had a great offense and a trash defense. 2019 had a great defense and a trash offense. Neither extreme is a great formula.
So Brady wants the perfect setup or he's so dissatisfied that he'll leave? That doesn't sound like him. But that's one thing I'm taking from the article. How could he complain about a system that produced nine super bowl appearances and six titles? I get that Brady is a huge part of the system, but Brady would have to be a massive egomaniac if he thinks that HE is THE reason the entire system works.It's not written clearly, but I took that as more general dissatisfaction with Belichick and his system than with the defense particularly. You're also kind of discounting the possibility of a middle ground here. That 2017 team had a great offense and a trash defense. 2019 had a great defense and a trash offense. Neither extreme is a great formula.
The 2018 formula won a Super Bowl (in spite of mediocre QB play), and the 2017 formula reached the Super Bowl as favorites to win, losing because the defense had a particularly bad day.It's not written clearly, but I took that as more general dissatisfaction with Belichick and his system than with the defense particularly. You're also kind of discounting the possibility of a middle ground here. That 2017 team had a great offense and a trash defense. 2019 had a great defense and a trash offense. Neither extreme is a great formula.
If you believe Wickersham is inside Brady's mind and everything he wrote in this article is sourced to be the absolute truth, then I can see where you'd think this wayFrom that Wickersham article...
"After the Patriots lost to the Philadelphia Eagles in Super Bowl LII, Brady was deeply dissatisfied. The offense had put up 613 yards with no punts."
Ok, so Brady was pissed after SB 52 because he lit up the stat book and the scoreboard, but was angry that his team had no defense. So Belichick builds a great defense, and during the playoff run, the defense does a great job, culminating in a dominating performance against the Rams on a day when Brady was.....barely mediocre.
The following year the team fields one of the best defenses in franchise history, and it absolutely carries the team, and Brady is pissed because now he doesn't have enough offensive weapons. So it gets back to a question I asked during last year....if you were Brady, knowing that you can't have EVERYTHING you want, would you rather have a great set of weapons around you but a mediocre defense (which is what sunk them in SB 52), or a great defense and mediocre offensive weapons (which allowed them to win SB 53 but which clearly frustrated him in 2019)?
It seemed like as his career with NE wound down, Brady was only going to be happy with both great offensive talent around him AND a great defense. Well Tom...I mean...come on man.
The article doesn't really talk about Brady's feelings on the defense or the offense. Wickersham is suggesting it's more intangible than that: Brady didn't feel appreciated. It sounds like it has been brewing a while, and the restructures (incentives in 2018, the bonus in 2019) were attempts to placate Brady that never really worked. I didn't read this as Brady complaining about the effectiveness of the system; I think he just didn't like working there anymore. The key line I think is: "Brady wasn't just looking to win Super Bowls, victory at all costs, the ethos of most of his career, fabulously successful and spectacularly unhealthy. He wanted what everyone wants from an employer: to feel valued and to love work."So Brady wants the perfect setup or he's so dissatisfied that he'll leave? That doesn't sound like him. But that's one thing I'm taking from the article. How could he complain about a system that produced nine super bowl appearances and six titles? I get that Brady is a huge part of the system, but Brady would have to be a massive egomaniac if he thinks that HE is THE reason the entire system works.
I dunno, some basic facts of how things proceeded seem uncontested:The net of these articles is no one has any real idea still what the dynamics were. This Wickersham piece is pretty far from his prior description really. Both could be right at time written—or totally baseless.
they have, to date, done a good job of hiding whatever the asks were or were not
I think we have absoultely no reason to think most of the above is clearly established, though I certainly think it is possible it all is true. I suspect they talked about multiple contract structures and options over time. We have to ask where the info is coming from--just because someone reported it doesn't make it true, and it is quite possible here that not all parties are leaking; it's also possible none of the key players are and all these articles are from secondary sources with limited access and unknonwn agendas. I mean, sure, could be Wickersham has it all right---including a lot of specific insight into Brady's frame of mind at various points in time. But historically, that seems unlikely to be the case and even if he had that, why would we think he also has the Pats side of the story?I dunno, some basic facts of how things proceeded seem uncontested:
1. The team presented him a 2-year or 1+1 offer back in last year's training camp, and he rejected these and ended up signing a one year voidable deal
2. Having done so, the team felt like they had made their first move on an extension, that the next move was for Brady to come to them with a demand, and as such didn't propose (didn't need to propose, would be an interpretation, but we know didn't propose) a further offer after the 2019 season
3. Brady, having gotten strong enough indications that other formal offers would be forthcoming, first decided that he wouldn't return to Foxboro
4. Brady then got actively courted by several teams eager for him to finish their career with them, and ended up choosing one of them.
It's easy in retrospect to say that #2 was a mistake, that when you're dealing with the franchise-cornerstone player you need to make him feel a little more loved and appreciated than that. Anyone here who's married or in a serious relationship has an understanding that sometimes doing the factually-sufficient thing ends up being woefully insufficient emotionally. Sometimes you have to extend yourself. Belichick didn't extend himself. Should he have? That's for debate. Should Kraft have insisted, or done so himself? Also for debate. But I think Wickersham's narrative, that "Brady felt unappreciated and wasn't having fun, and once he hit 40[1] suddenly that became a lot more important to him than it had been previously", is a very plausible interpretation on top of those facts. And frankly, I don't know what a good second-place interpretation would be.
My interpretation-of-the-interpretation is that Brady wanted a 3-year guaranteed offer (To let him play through age 45) that wasn't forthcoming, and in the conversations with Belichick (referred to, but obviously not chronicled in detail) he didn't get any indication that Belichick was open to that. So he read between the lines that he could either go out on his own terms or wait for Bill to tell him his time was up, and he opted for the former. He went somewhere that could more or less guarantee him what he wanted and there wouldn't be drama. Maybe it had something to do with his own ideas about team construction or "the system", but probably not (it's certainly not necessary to believe that in order to believe the emotional narrative). Maybe it was Bruce Arians being a fun guy, maybe not. But I don't think there are a whole lot of alternatives to the idea that he left, first and foremost, because he felt unappreciated - and everything else was just talk-show fodder, not real relationship stuff.
[1] this goes back to the remarks from Tom vs Time that Wickersham quotes, which got some remarks here when it came out.
I don't want to rehash an old point, but I am now confused if Brady was actually offered to San Francisco. I thought the original story was that BB just called up Lynch and offered Jimmy for a #2 and when asked about Brady he just said no. Now a newer story comes out and says that BB tried to trade Brady to SF and Kraft said no.Both the Wickersham piece and the PFT link a little earlier point to something changing for Brady around the 2017. What's interesting to me is the notion that Brady hearing about the possible SF trade both (a) motivated him to reach two more Super Bowls, winning one and (b) created a lot more emotional distance between Brady and BB (or the team as a whole) that was ultimately too wide a gap to overcome. There's something a little tragic about that story, if it's true.
We might be missing a lot, but we have both Curran and (I think) Kraft himself saying that they were waiting for Brady to come to them with what he wanted. I don't think that's in much doubt, although of course there's a spectrum of how dickish the process might've been, or how badly bungled the communication (in either direction).I think we have absoultely no reason to think most of the above is clearly established, though I certainly think it is possible it all is true. I suspect they talked about multiple contract structures and options over time. We have to ask where the info is coming from--just because someone reported it doesn't make it true, and it is quite possible here that not all parties are leaking; it's also possible none of the key players are and all these articles are from secondary sources with limited access and unknonwn agendas. I mean, sure, could be Wickersham has it all right---including a lot of specific insight into Brady's frame of mind at various points in time. But historically, that seems unlikely to be the case and even if he had that, why would we think he also has the Pats side of the story?
Also, it's pretty unrealistic to suggest they weren't exchanging ideas this offseason---I simply don't believe that. I get the desire to draw a line at "Brady responding with what would it take" but I suspect the reality is a lot more grey than that.
I guess that's all to say my observation is that we rarely have the full story on a situation like this, and I'm fine with us all interpreting what we have but we should remain open to the very likely possibilty we're missing a lot
I want to kind of call bullshit on a); I don't think motivation had anything to do with it. I mean, they made the Super Bowl in 2014 and 2016 and came within two points in 2015.Both the Wickersham piece and the PFT link a little earlier point to something changing for Brady around the 2017. What's interesting to me is the notion that Brady hearing about the possible SF trade both (a) motivated him to reach two more Super Bowls, winning one and (b) created a lot more emotional distance between Brady and BB (or the team as a whole) that was ultimately too wide a gap to overcome. There's something a little tragic about that story, if it's true.
You're conflating two stories here. Lynch says he called Belichick about Jimmy G before the 2017 season and Belichick said no. Then he asked about Brady and Belichick laughed and him and hung up. A few months later, when Belichick actually traded Garoppolo just before the 2017 trading deadline, he just called Lynch and offered Jimmy for the 2.I don't want to rehash an old point, but I am now confused if Brady was actually offered to San Francisco. I thought the original story was that BB just called up Lynch and offered Jimmy for a #2 and when asked about Brady he just said no. Now a newer story comes out and says that BB tried to trade Brady to SF and Kraft said no.
I think Kraft played a role here, too. He was personally involved in Brady's contract negotiations through the years. He coaxed Josh back at the 11th hour. He helped Brady get his house in Brookline, letting him be more present in Foxboro year-round. He helped Brady install TB12.It’s not hard to imagine that winning is actually less of an elixir for Brady at 43 after nine Super Bowls and six wins. A lot of us lose our luster for the most important part of our jobs as we get older – sure, closing the deal—and even proving people wrong—is still enjoyable but it’s less of a high and a motivator as we age. What’s incredible is that this lasted 20 years without this sort of thing coming to a head sooner. I think it shows how effective Brady and Belichick have both been at shutting out the noise.
Wickersham focuses on the recent couple years but he says there was friction dating back to Brady rehabbing in LA rather than Foxboro back in 2008. If that's true, it's amazing they held everything together this long (and had a run of unprecedented success in the process).One thing worth noting: if you believe Wickersham then Deflategate was the first crack in the relationship between Brady and Belichick. The idea that Goodell’s giving in to the other owners may have set this split in motion or hastened it is infuriating.
Thank you for the clarification.You're conflating two stories here. Lynch says he called Belichick about Jimmy G before the 2017 season and Belichick said no. Then he asked about Brady and Belichick laughed and him and hung up. A few months later, when Belichick actually traded Garoppolo just before the 2017 trading deadline, he just called Lynch and offered Jimmy for the 2.
The "Belichick tried to trade Brady to SF" thing doesn't make any sense to me. When was this going to happen? After the 2016 season when they had the 28-3 comeback? Halfway through Brady's MVP season in 2017 (when they traded Jimmy)?
What he wrote about Logan Mankins, having just traded him away like a dog, was pretty effusive praise. Doesn't quite extend to the degree he did it with Brady here, but it's not unprecedented with BB. Just rare.By the way, as far as such things go, I don't think this ended that badly. Brady was extremely thankful and complimentary towards the organization and Belichick as he left, and both Kraft and Belichick had incredibly kind and meaningful things to say to Brady as well. No divorce is fun, and it always sucks when things like this (though there's never been a thing like this before, to be perfectly honest) end, but this ended as amiably and respectfully as they could have. Brady didn't just storm out. He went to visit Kraft to talk it over with him. I'm sure they both cried. BB didn't have to write what he did - he hasn't done anything remotely like that for any other player that's left. But he did. As far as divorces go, this one was pretty....good, I guess.
It is pretty obvious that the party who would want out there "Pats were waiting for Brady to come back to them" is Kraft. The question is whether Brady has said the same---I believe answer is no. And that's precisely my point---you have writers who talk to sources and unless you know the source's agenda, you don't really know what you're getting. That's the difference between knowing something and having an idea about it.We might be missing a lot, but we have both Curran and (I think) Kraft himself saying that they were waiting for Brady to come to them with what he wanted. I don't think that's in much doubt, although of course there's a spectrum of how dickish the process might've been, or how badly bungled the communication (in either direction).
Wickersham's armchair psychology is, I think, the weakest part of his piece. But we do have verifiable statements that together give some credence to the core idea (minus the flowery elaboration): he wanted to be appreciated and enjoy being at work. Even just the "appreciated" side of it more or less squares with the manner in which he departed (first deciding that he wouldn't return, then deciding where he was going to go), the Tom vs Time comments and what few other things we've seen said or reported. Whether that feeling was going to be sufficient to make him leave the team, I think, was always up for dispute (indeed, I thought he would return). But now having departed, it seems like the occams-razor default explanation we have. If it was about (say) the money, we'd have heard something about various offers bandied about.
It's an example of Wickersham pushing the narrative and then using his sources to build the narrative he wants. One watch of the Football Life special with Belichick indicates that there were no issues between Brady and Belichick in 2009.I want to kind of call bullshit on a); I don't think motivation had anything to do with it. I mean, they made the Super Bowl in 2014 and 2016 and came within two points in 2015.
Wickersham points to a few things going on about that 2017 time period - Brady launching TB12 and creating friction with the training staff, a contract negotiation that went poorly (Brady tended to renegotiate his deal two years out, and the deal he signed in 2015/2016 took him through 2019), Brady not feeling like Belichick / Kraft had his back in Deflategate. Others will read into the Garoppolo thing. But Wickersham also suggests there were issues going back to 2008.