Thoughts/Impressions on “The Dynasty” Apple TV Series
- Thread starter Dewey's 'stache
- Start date
After the 2nd episode it seemed like all the Dynasty dealt with was scandal, murder and infighting. Gridiron greatness took a back seat. It was not the fun watch I wanted to enjoy, nor how I felt over the two decades watching what was arguably the greatest Dynasty in NFL history.
Gronk was also (mostly) left out except for the 2017 comments.
BB was in full on hostage video mode.
To this day, I remain infuriated by the Butler benching. Yes, Butler had a dissappointing year, but you can't see fit to play a guy for 98% of snaps through the whole season and 2 playoff games, then bench him for the Superbowl, lose the game because your team could not get one single stop, never give a word of explanation, and expect to get anything but excoriated.
Honestly, I think BB simply cost himself and the Pats a champioship out of some type of spite. Hard to believe, but nothing else makes any sort of sense. I don't mean that he tried to throw the game, but I think he created a scenario in his head where giving Butler's snaps to a mix of Rowe, Richards, Bademosi, etc, would be best for the team or at least good enough to win. And even as that failed miserably he refused to adjust.
Last edited:
I find the notion that Butler being benched directly cost them a championship to be revisionist, hyperbolic and reactionary. And I was mystified and pissed off by it as well. But that defense sucked, he had a sub par year and playoff, IIRC, and by no means was he a huge impact player. I think they were getting shredded either way. Agree, they didn't quite 100 % put their best foot forward, and I’d still also like to know the reason behind the benching. But Bill willfully flushing a championship is over the top. And as noted up thread, ignores the other circumstances where they could’ve made key plays to give themselves a chance to win.
There is a chance that Bill is protecting Butler by keeping quiet.
I know there is a spectrum in how we view BB. I am not in the camp that loved his asshole bullying style. I am more in the camp that grudgingly recognized it as who he was and that it was part and parcel of what made him great. But even without being a sycophant, I recognize that Bill has no problem taking the heat for what could be something that Butler is very aware of, to the point where I could easily see Bill refusing to say or imply things that would take some of the heat off Bill.
If Butler did do something and is saying he didn’t, Bill has every right to out him. But protecting him to the end, including from his teammates, is very on brand.
This could be Belichick apologetics. I get that. But I am just saying it is in the zone of possibility. We may just have to accept that it lives in the place where questions about whether Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone also live.
I know there is a spectrum in how we view BB. I am not in the camp that loved his asshole bullying style. I am more in the camp that grudgingly recognized it as who he was and that it was part and parcel of what made him great. But even without being a sycophant, I recognize that Bill has no problem taking the heat for what could be something that Butler is very aware of, to the point where I could easily see Bill refusing to say or imply things that would take some of the heat off Bill.
If Butler did do something and is saying he didn’t, Bill has every right to out him. But protecting him to the end, including from his teammates, is very on brand.
This could be Belichick apologetics. I get that. But I am just saying it is in the zone of possibility. We may just have to accept that it lives in the place where questions about whether Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone also live.
I liked the series. It was for a general audience not specifically Pats fans. There was a lot of drama around the team over the last 24 years and people love drama. The BB-Brady relationship was not going to last forever and we were lucky to see the best years of it. I refuse to quibble about every choice the filmmakers made.
There were so many rumblings of Butler fighting with a coach - and all of those rumblings have disappeared since the doc came out.
Was that false?
Was that false?
I hear a lot that the doc was aimed at a "general audience." But if I'm the non-Pats fan out there in flyover country coming to this cold, I just watched a series called "The Dynasty" and came away with zero idea or clue as to how this franchise built and maintained a dynasty for two decades.
In fact, I'm mystified that a team so dysfunctional, so petty and so distracted by off-field scandal managed to win anything at all.
That's why I'm not buying that the show's slant and sensationalism was simply the attempt to cater to a general audience. It seems pretty clear to me that there was an agenda going in.
BB was never the type of guy to publicly air dirty laundry like that, especially if he was still coaching the team and Butler was still an active player when these interviews were conducted.
My thinking is that something happened during the week with Butler but the details arent known except to Butler, the Belichicks and maybe Patricia. Nothing was never communicated to the team at large, including the offensive staff. I’m sure Butler knows the reason, but BB probably just said “You’re not playing” rather than “You’re benched for XYZ”. I remember Matt P in his post game interview trying to playing it off as a game plan/rotational thing without much success.
You don’t think Ernie knows? He’s taking Spygate to his grave (what a stupid comment by him) you could trust him with this.
One play. One third down stop. That’s all that was needed. As I recall Philly punted zero times in that game.
And however bad Butler was, BB didn’t think of benching him for 16 regular season games and 2 playoff games. That speaks volumes about what BB thought of the guys behind Butler.
My guess is Ernie knows too and may have somehow been involved. He's the only guy Bill is 100% loyal to, no matter what. Maybe it's as anodyne as one of Ernie's hunches based on tape. (Not really logical but neither are the other theories.)
You guys have to remember that Butler was a FA and up for a big new contract from another team. And no matter the reasons for the benching, BB isn't the type of guy to tank a player's value by spilling dirt to the media. Butler got his payday from TEN, the Pats won the SB the very next year, and everyone moved on with their lives. And Butler obviously doesn't hold a grudge because he re-signed in NE before getting hurt and retiring with an injury settlement.
And BB doesn't hold a grudge either, since he willingly took Butler back.
It really is a gigantic mystery. It's on the top 3 things I wish Belichick would just tell us about.
What are your other 2? This could be a good thread. Top 3 or 5 questions you’d ask BB on truth serum.
The longer no info comes out, the more I think it was a variety of factors that aren't in any way "salacious": Butler was sick and hadn't practiced, BB developed a game plan that relied on safeties more than CBs, they were thin on the roster due to injuries so they couldn't declare him inactive, etc.
The most likely "salacious" thing I consider possible is that Butler had a concussion and the Pats didn't declare it because they had so many injuries in the defensive backfield.
It also bears remembering that that SB was a VERY weird game. The Eagles didn't play any defense either. The Clement TD shuld have been ruled incomplete. The Philly Special came out of an illegal formation. Brady dropping the swing pass. Lots of weird shit happened in that game. Maybe there were solar flares or something.
- Do you have regrets about not trading Hernandez to Seattle?
- At what point in 2001 did you KNOW Brady was your starter for the foreseeable future?
-The full story on the Jimmy G pick and eventual trade
-Did you want/hope TB to walk in to the sunset after LI/LIII to start planning for the future
- Please explain in detail what you and the organization thought of Deflategate, and how did your conversations go with Brady and Kraft and even Goodell about it?
- Please explain in detail why you didn't re-sign Brady at the end? How did those conversations go with him and with Kraft?
I assumed Seattle was just a random west coast team that Ernie picked, but yeah, that's a question I'd like to know the answer to.
Why, after getting a clear directive from the league, did you tape one more time from an illegal location? Was it worth the bullshit it brought upon the franchise?
Bill, why ON EARTH did you think that giving Brady a two-year $50 mill guaranteed was even in the ballpark of a bad deal? And why THE FUCK would anyone think that's anything but a steal, a basket of generosity flowers that Brady offered the team? What went through your mind?
It will be interesting if we see Bill back in Foxboro in the near future. I watched this and felt that it was a hit job on him. I know if I was him I would not want much to do with Kraft any time soon. I, however, doubt if he even bothered to watch it.
I'm sure he's hearing about it and the man knows how to hold a grudge. At least with RKK there were ups and downs, but I think a mutual respect. When Jonathan takes over not sure things will be too warm and fuzzy, which is really too bad.
It sounded like from the documentary there was no way Brady was coming back.
All the controversy in that game also overshadowed Cooks’ stupid hurdle attempt along with getting concussed on a play he probably should have just gone down.
I was going to suggest that maybe Bill caught Butler sneaking around with a teammate's girl. Sounds crazy, but it would fit the fact pattern, and not many theories do.
I waited until they were all up to binge. Many of these points have been made already in the thread but I share the complex feelings and confusion about this production.
I absolutely loved the start. It had great context and quotes. There's nothing glaringly new, but the interviews gave a little new insight into the decision process that I didn't have from prior reports. I also knew but didn't fully appreciate the depth of the Testaverde parallels. Every interview added something, and I got a kick out of Martz.
Glossing over 2003-2006 is just a mistake. The streak, the 2004 playoff difficulty (had to beat all 3 of the other top 4 teams in a row), the Milloy & Branch performances and departures...are key to the story being told. This is David becoming Goliath, and the first success and failure of treating key players as expendable. Just make it 11 episodes if that's what it needs to be.
As a fan, full episode treatment of each scandal wasn't for me. But if it's going to be a full episode, don't let it end with key aspects being entirely unaddressed. After fielding barbs from low information folks for decades, it's disappointing that they could watch these entire episodes and still not be exposed to information that I consider to be the headline.
On the Philly SB loss, I have been a full on BB apologist (e.g. we don't really know what happened, we were getting beat in ways that needed a nickel safety to address more than a nickel corner). But if the off-the-field issue was bad enough to keep a useful player from playing when things got desperate, why was he dressed and why does McDaniels not know anything? Or if it is a performance-based decision, how do you explain the interviews from several players on the field who know the scheme and what's beating them, were in practice with Butler all week, and can't understand why he wouldn't be out there with them. This was tougher to watch than I expected.
Which made it all the more important that they landed the plane on the series with a fair handling of the Rams SB as a BB masterpiece. Going into the last episode, I thought I would regret watching. But the last episode reminded me that people are a package deal. The BB package is the GOAT coach, a grump who is obsessed with football and brought me 20+ years of sports fandom joy that would have been unimaginable to the 1990 version of me.
All in all, this wasn't made for me but I don't regret watching it. But I can't recommend it to the general audience either. The amount of time spent on the scandals while never getting to the heart of them and the skim past the 2003-2004 David to Goliath transformation are a disservice to a viewer who is coming into this fresh.
I absolutely loved the start. It had great context and quotes. There's nothing glaringly new, but the interviews gave a little new insight into the decision process that I didn't have from prior reports. I also knew but didn't fully appreciate the depth of the Testaverde parallels. Every interview added something, and I got a kick out of Martz.
Glossing over 2003-2006 is just a mistake. The streak, the 2004 playoff difficulty (had to beat all 3 of the other top 4 teams in a row), the Milloy & Branch performances and departures...are key to the story being told. This is David becoming Goliath, and the first success and failure of treating key players as expendable. Just make it 11 episodes if that's what it needs to be.
As a fan, full episode treatment of each scandal wasn't for me. But if it's going to be a full episode, don't let it end with key aspects being entirely unaddressed. After fielding barbs from low information folks for decades, it's disappointing that they could watch these entire episodes and still not be exposed to information that I consider to be the headline.
- On Spygate, it was a real infraction that deserved a penalty. But the importance of the shift from Tagliabue to Goodell and the feedback loop between the need to exert/respect authority, the unprecedented penalty, and the external perception of the severity went unexamined. They at least tried with the Rams walkthrough aspect that most people think spygate is about, but it came across as less "this story was false" and more "rich guy made something go away with lawyers".
- On Aaron Hernandez, it was pretty fair outside of the hatchet job around the rejected trade request. But how does the CTE discovery not make the cut, especially against the backdrop of the labor relations that runs through the next few episodes (including Deflategate as a distraction) and the dark side of the replaceable players concept?
- On Deflategate, the problem is there is so much BS that it is impossible to explain to someone without seeming manic. But I really wish they had found room for three things.
- First, get a 15 second clip of one of the non-Boston-based amicus curiae submitting professors explaining that they can't say if Brady cheated on other days, but the half-assed science experiment the NFL ran on 1/18/2015 gave results science would expect with no tampering (or up to 0.53 psi of tampering with the most aggressive assumptions that conflict with the memory of the referee).
- Then a 15 second clip of Jonathan Kraft explaining how the SB week and next few months of TB/BB/RKK media responses were trying to explain how 11 of 12 greater than 2.0 psi low could have happened, when that's an impossible task. Each knew that they didn't tamper with the balls, but they don't know for sure what other people did, there is no physics explanation for it IF IT WERE TRUE, and why would someone lie about those numbers?
- Third and least important of these, have someone explain how everything after Goodell's arbitration ruling (federal court appeals) is inherently structured to consider only whether Goodell acted within his authority as an arbitrator, not whether anything happened on 1/18/2015. This is one of the most fascinating things I learned from all of the time I wasted following the details of this farce, and is directly tied to the labor relations issue. It was not just a distraction, it was a tool to expand league power over the union.
- On the missing scandals, I get why the Kraft 2019 Spygate and Orchids of Asia weren't in given the production funding. But in a documentary where the rest of the trinity gets full episode treatment of their scandals and the Putin ring story gets a special guest appearance from Murdoch, it was a glaring double standard. The lost 2021 3rd round pick might have been a useful player right now. Where's the video of RKK asking himself how much value was added to "Do Your Job 2019" and calling himself a schmuck?
On the Philly SB loss, I have been a full on BB apologist (e.g. we don't really know what happened, we were getting beat in ways that needed a nickel safety to address more than a nickel corner). But if the off-the-field issue was bad enough to keep a useful player from playing when things got desperate, why was he dressed and why does McDaniels not know anything? Or if it is a performance-based decision, how do you explain the interviews from several players on the field who know the scheme and what's beating them, were in practice with Butler all week, and can't understand why he wouldn't be out there with them. This was tougher to watch than I expected.
Which made it all the more important that they landed the plane on the series with a fair handling of the Rams SB as a BB masterpiece. Going into the last episode, I thought I would regret watching. But the last episode reminded me that people are a package deal. The BB package is the GOAT coach, a grump who is obsessed with football and brought me 20+ years of sports fandom joy that would have been unimaginable to the 1990 version of me.
All in all, this wasn't made for me but I don't regret watching it. But I can't recommend it to the general audience either. The amount of time spent on the scandals while never getting to the heart of them and the skim past the 2003-2004 David to Goliath transformation are a disservice to a viewer who is coming into this fresh.
I have not watched this only read comments from those that have, but to me it seems like this was not about the actual dynasty, and more about the scandal and inner turmoil you get with a 20 year period of success. By the end it seems to have cheapened the winning and clouded the Patriot way mantra. I have to ask why the hell did the Krafts sign off on this, if they think it makes them look good or better, it doesn't to me.
You should watch before commenting. There are legitimate criticisms in this thread however this thing isn't a hit piece on anyone, its not pure hagiography and a lot of complaints are simply that the director didn't make the choices people wanted. That's a criticism of almost all content.
If people don't want to pay up for a subscription to Apple that makes sense. But the royal we cannot be objective on this series. It seems shortsighted to avoid something because of some of the criticisms here (frankly there feels like a lot of projection in some comments - we really don't need to defend anyone here as this story is already written).
I think if that were the case, Butler/Kraft/Ernie/someone on the team would have simply come out and said it.
I think something happened with Butler during the Super Bowl week, and the Pats and their security apparatus buried it. Could have been a lot of things, and it could have opened the team and everyone else up to legal issues because they covered it up. If Butler simply got benched for football reasons, I don't think Butler would have any issues throwing BB under the bus and making comments about how he could have changed the game for them, etc. If Butler was simply benched for football reasons, I think Kraft would have had no problem throwing Bill under the bus, which he did throughout the series (and I think it's comical if anyone believes Kraft doesn't know what happened). If Butler was benched for football reasons, and given what guys like Slater, DMC, etc. were willing to give in their interviews, why would they draw the line on Butler?
I've gone around in my brain on this for years, and it's the only thing that makes sense. It's the only thing that makes sense even more when you account for the fact that Bill and Butler were back together a few years later. Butler fucked up bad, and the team bailed him out and everybody is taking it to their grave, or at least their deathbeds.
I'm not avoiding because god forbid someone says something bad about the patriots, strictly an i dont need another subscription service is my reason! Just kind of shocked the Krafts would sign up for this was my main point, i dont think it is a very good look for them or the franchise for that matter.
I don't follow.
You didn't watch and yet you seem convinced that the content is a bad look for the Krafts. How did you arrive at this opinion?
View: https://twitter.com/BenVolin/status/1770127346370056339
Not a surprise in the slightest. The agenda was clear.
Not a surprise in the slightest. The agenda was clear.
I didn't watch it because I think I know as much as I want to about the last 20 years of patriots' football. In general, I rarely watch documentaries about things or individuals I "lived" through. There's only so many hours in a day.
Not that I disagree with his overall point but it seems pretty weird that Rodney used himself as an example of Bill giving an underdog a chance to succeed. He had a reputation as a dirty player with San Diego but was still widely considered one of the best strong safeties in the NFL before he signed with the Patriots.
I haven't watched it but have paid pretty close attention to this thread. I know that over 20 years there's going to be all kinds of drama, and a bunch of negative things. No organization can just be a joyride only for that long. But you simply cannot win like the New England Patriots won over that long a period of time without it being overwhelmingly positive. They obviously did a LOT of things right, but from the sounds of it, The Dynasty really emphasized a bunch of stuff they didn't do right. Which is clearly the result of editorial decisions, so it makes me wonder.... WHY? Why *those* editorial decisions? What's behind that?
It's been a while, but IIRC his reputation was tarnished to the point that Rodney did not think he would receive another contract or be welcomed on a new team.
Rodney was coming off a torn groin. There was at least some speculation that he could be done.
At the same time, there was buzz around the idea of Milloy and Harrison in the same backfield. I’m not so sure how that would’ve worked—neither guy was a free safety—but I do know that I wouldn’t have wanted to be a WR catching a ball over the middle against those two guys.
Rodney Harrison was routinely convinced that no one gave the Patriots a chance despite them being heavily favored and running roughshod over the league. His concept of 'underdog' is a tad suspect.
It makes the most sense on its face to be sure, but how then do we explain Butler's special teams play in the SB? If what he did was bad enough for him not to play defense, what makes special teams different?
I have said this, but my hypothesis is that that was a mistake. That the ST coach sent him in for that one play (maybe totally forgot about Butler's ban) and BB noticed it and said absolutely no more of that, and that was that.
Rodney was a master of the “Nobody believes in us!” school of motivation.
Agree with this.
A concussion?
Yeah Rodney was not only viewed as "toxic" due to his habitual line-stepping, but he was on the wrong side of 30 when signing with the Pats. Hard-hitting safeties can go downhill in a hurry after 9 years in the league, but he went another 5+ years with NE.
Perhaps but this ignores the fact that Butler was active for the game and got a snap. Kraft infers it was a personal matter between Butler and BB, which if true is unforgivable to do to the players, coaches and fans.
So if Butler's situation was really that bad, why was he active at all? It's a super oddity. If he was NOT going to play at all (as I said, I think the one ST snap he got was an error), why even bother having him active?
I do think part of the answer to that is because they had nobody left in the org at that position. Here were their inactives:
- DT Alan Branch
- RB Mike Gillislee
- LB David Harris
- OL Cole Croston
- WR Kenny Britt
- TE Jacob Hollister
- WR Bernard Reedy
So it wasn't like they kept another DB inactive but kept Butler active. They literally had no other DBs available, and they felt like if they lost people to injury, they needed Butler there as the ultimate "break glass in case of emergency" guy, who they had no intention of playing unless they literally ran out of bodies in the defensive backfield.