Bombastic ESPN article on relationships of Brady, Kraft, Belichick, Guerrero

[mission27]

11 hours ago, tonyto36 said:

When you support a guy who told dying cancer patients to give him money because he's cured cancer, I think it's justified being dubious of someone endorsing him.  

Tbf, I'm pretty sure he cured a lot of things in his previous life.  But this time around maybe he should stick to football. 

[tonyto36]

2 hours ago, 1ForTheThumb said:

Yup. This story is forced because everyone's looking for reason why Belichick traded him with him looking like a franchise QB.

Here's the thing, he didn't.

When he was drafted no one expected Brady to be playing at an MVP level like he currently is.

Around this years draft, he didn't want to trade him. There's a reason why credible reporters like Schefter and Rappoport were saying that he will not be traded. He wanted to continue to ride out this season and if Brady dropped off or showed signed of declining, he keep him until next year.

Problem is, Brady didn't. So Belichick was forced to get at least something for him at the deadline. Not forced by Kraft, not forced by Brady. He simply rid out the situation for as long as he could and it was overall just bad timing. He wasn't going to trade an HOF, proven commodity and hang onto the younger, unproven commodity. And Jimmy was NEVER going to except a contract extension to be a back up and continue to wait. Through another wrinkle into this, that often gets overlooked? They share the same agent.

Belichick did what he's always done, and what Kraft has always given him the chance to do...to do what's best for the football team. Should he have gotten more? Yes. But at that point, his hand was forced.

That's nonsense.

Belichick going through this season thinking it's remotely possible Brady declines so much that he can trade him is absurd.   You seriously think that Belichick thought Brady was going to be mediocre this year after last season?  You seriously thought Belichick thought it possible Brady would suck after training camp?  Preseason?  Septemeber?   It was clear to even casual fans that Brady could play, yet the possible package for Brady/JG would naturally decline over time.  

You're talking out both sides of your mouth.  Schefter and Rappoport were both adamant that the Patriots will never trade Jimmy G... yet the Patriots did.   Because Belichick lied to Schefter and wanted to make him look like an ***?    JG was never going to accept an extension to be a back up - EXACTLY.  There was zero chance of that happening, so Belichick holding out to hope that JG would accept it or Brady would decline enough to make it easy to move on is just insanity that makes zero sense.  

Belichick WANTED to do what he's always done - go with the younger, cheaper, higher upside option over the aging vet.  Except he wasn't allowed to.  So he dumped the younger, cheaper, higher upside option.   

 

If Belichick did what he's always done, he would have traded Brady or kept JG and moved on from Brady this offseason.

Literally everything you said either directly contradicts itself, makes zero sense, or is just factually wrong.  

[Apparition]

9 minutes ago, tonyto36 said:

Belichick going through this season thinking it's remotely possible Brady declines so much that he can trade him is absurd.   You seriously think that Belichick thought Brady was going to be mediocre this year after last season?  You seriously thought Belichick thought it possible Brady would suck after training camp?  Preseason?  Septemeber?   It was clear to even casual fans that Brady could play, yet the possible package for Brady/JG would naturally decline over time.  

Brady is 40. Belichick said at the time that JG was drafted that a major part of the reason for that was the age of the starting QB. 

Garoppolo wasn't drafted to be a long-term backup, he was drafted to be Brady's successor. Clearly that lit a fire under Brady and over the last 3 years he's played as well as he ever has, but I doubt that Belichick's attitude of hedging against the possibility of Brady going into permanent decline went away.

[mission27]

The bottom line is there was no option other than trading Jimmy, unless he really wanted to sign on to be a backup and maybe get to replace Brady in a few years. 

1 hour ago, tonyto36 said:

Schefter and Rappoport were both adamant that the Patriots will never trade Jimmy G... yet the Patriots did.   Because Belichick lied to Schefter and wanted to make him look like an ***? 

Lol are you serious?  Do you really think those reports came from Belichick?  Do you think him and Schefty are text buddies? 

Come on.  The Patriots are a black box.  There is a long, long history of the Patriots trading major players, very suddenly, for returns that don't look great on face value.  ESPN and co. are always wrong about this ****. 

The idea that a 65 year old head coach, who maybe has 3-5 years left himself, wanted to dump the best player in NFL history in the middle of a Super Bowl run just to set the team up better for the future for whoever takes over in a few years is completely asinine.  It makes zero sense.  

[LD696]

5 hours ago, ChazStandard said:

You mean like insurance? Or a new credit card? Or anti-depressants? Or those ridiculous fake maps with "better cell phone coverage" written on them?

Because they all get advertised on American television all the time. And they all have celebrity endorsements. Do you know how many people get screwed over by  All State and Nationwide every year? Do you think celebrities who endorse Bank of America taint their brand everytime they foreclose one someone's house?

Defending someone's unethical behaviour on the basis of 'well fook mate, XYZ did that too' is one of the worst banes of mankind. I'm naive enough, that I expect people in a position to be role models, to not engage in ventures that can cause harm to other people and society in general. And you can bet I'm damned pissed when they do, doubly so when someone I admire for his/her successes does. These people should be held to higher standards due to their influential power and the fact that they aren't is a tragedy itself. Pey-pey shilling bad insurance should not be a reason for me to not despise Brady for pairing up with a snake oil salesman to peddle woo.

5 hours ago, ChazStandard said:

You don't know his book is stupid, you haven't read it. You don't know his approach doesn't work, for a sample size of 1 so far it does. And let's not buy into the straw-man that reporters are trying to make of this. I've read his website, all it does is say "drink more water, don't smoke  or drink, don't eat processed sugar or caffiene, work on flexibility not bulk and eat lots of vege3tables and you'll be healthier". That's been common knowledge for literally decades. He doesn't claim to be immortal or to cure cancer.

I've only read what's available as a preview on amazon, but the book reads very shallow. The exercise list is just a bunch of auxiliary and support movements that hardly make you any stronger ( simply put, an NFL D-lineman following this method of training would be eaten alive in seconds by high school OL); the nutrition part lists a few healthy recipes, all of which you can probably find online for free; I can't comment on the brain training part, but I have pretty low expectations. Why would I spend money on a book scissored and pasted from common knowledge?

The "pliability" part seems to be the biggest selling point, but this is 1) again, nothing novel 2) has been known that it can be overemphasized to the point of being harmful 3) it's not been unemphasized because it's some original, new finding, but because it's applicability in strength training is really limited (if you can do a proper low-bar squat, you're flexible/pliable enough to live a full life - unless you're a ballett dancer, of course, but in this case you can kiss your joints goodbye anyway).

Following an approach, which efficiency has been tested on a sample size of one, sounds about as good of a decision as buying your neighbour's home made wonder cancer medicine which once cured his great grand-nephew's closest friend's ill hamster. Not very. Oh and Brady may not claim he knows how to cure cancer. But his business partner once did.

5 hours ago, ChazStandard said:

Whether or not it works, he's genuinely trying to do something good, instead of just hawking crap for the highest bidder, I think that is admirable. I mean, it takes real balls to go on TV and tell people not to drink Coca Cola, when Coke is one of the biggest endorsements an athlete can have. That shows some principle, and it bothers me that some people would rather have him advertising for Burger King instead of telling people to eat organic vegetables.

It seems to me you're falling for the hysteria

Again, Brady's intentions may seem genuine. But, as your famous countryman once sang "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". He teamed up with the wrong guy, that's what most of us are pissy about, I think. I'm in no way saying that he should endorse unhealthy lifestyles instead. But he could have chosen a better hill to die on.

[tonyto36]

2 hours ago, Starless said:

Brady is 40. Belichick said at the time that JG was drafted that a major part of the reason for that was the age of the starting QB. 

Garoppolo wasn't drafted to be a long-term backup, he was drafted to be Brady's successor. Clearly that lit a fire under Brady and over the last 3 years he's played as well as he ever has, but I doubt that Belichick's attitude of hedging against the possibility of Brady going into permanent decline went away.

I'm sure that was part of his assessment.  But Belichick has shown a thousand times, if he knows a guy is walking to a bigger contract in the offseason, he'd rather get ahead and trade and get a return for it.  

The concept "Belichick didn't trade JG before the draft because he wanted to make sure Brady didn't fall off a cliff [ie.  Belichick is Max Kellerman], is absurd at best.   

On top of that, it's just completely illogical, because if that was the case, Belichick would have waited until the trade line for as long as possible before trading him.  

1 hour ago, mission27 said:

The bottom line is there was no option other than trading Jimmy, unless he really wanted to sign on to be a backup and maybe get to replace Brady in a few years. 

Lol are you serious?  Do you really think those reports came from Belichick?  Do you think him and Schefty are text buddies? 

Come on.  The Patriots are a black box.  There is a long, long history of the Patriots trading major players, very suddenly, for returns that don't look great on face value.  ESPN and co. are always wrong about this ****. 

The idea that a 65 year old head coach, who maybe has 3-5 years left himself, wanted to dump the best player in NFL history in the middle of a Super Bowl run just to set the team up better for the future for whoever takes over in a few years is completely asinine.  It makes zero sense.  

Uh, Schefter has proven repeatedly he has legitimate ties, high up in the Patriots organization.  He's also widely regarded the best and most reliable sports reporter in the entire world.  I really don't know what you've been watching if you don't think Schefter is a legitimate source or who you exactly will believe.  

Schefter became agitated when pressed and asked if the Patriots were really not trading JG.  He basically threw a fit on live television and said he is completely positive it is not happening.  Not for one first round pick.  Not for four.  He heard from Belichicks mouth.  There is no one else that he would have heard from that would make him feel so strongly.  

 

Yes the Patriots have a long history of trading players.   And the Patriots could have gotten a fortune for JG before the draft.  AND THEY DIDNT.  

It's been widely speculated and believed that Belichick wants to coach after Brady and separate himself.   It also makes complete sense for him given every Patriots player we've heard talk about JG talked about him like he was the second coming of Aaron Rodgers - and looked like it in San Fran.  

What is asinine and makes zero sense is that Belichick - a guy with a loooooong history of booting out aging vets for young cheap talent is suddenly going to put his stock in a 41 year old QB resetting NFL history books and rewriting how we view age in the NFL in place of a young QB that reportedly the Patriots viewed as a future top 10 player.  

[Apparition]

18 minutes ago, tonyto36 said:

I'm sure that was part of his assessment.  But Belichick has shown a thousand times, if he knows a guy is walking to a bigger contract in the offseason, he'd rather get ahead and trade and get a return for it.  

The concept "Belichick didn't trade JG before the draft because he wanted to make sure Brady didn't fall off a cliff [ie.  Belichick is Max Kellerman], is absurd at best.   

I genuinely don't get why you think it's absurd. QB assessment, especially that of a 40-year-old QB, is an imprecise science at best, and at worst requires a lot of guesswork. If I'm Belichick, I sure as hell am not going into the 2017 season assured of the fact that my 40-year-old QB will be able to play at an elite level for 16 games + playoffs. If the choice was between going into the season with a 40-year-old QB who could lose it at any moment and a reliable failsafe on the roster and a 40-year-old QB with no reliable failsafe, I don't know a single rational person who'd choose the latter.

We've all seen what happens to top QBs around this age. It happened to Brett Favre, it happened to Peyton Manning, it happened to Marino; Elway was wise to walk away before it happened to him. Once a guy approaches that plateau of 300 career starts (Brady is at 287 counting playoffs), the uncertainty around his viability, even in the short-term, rises exponentially. It made all the sense in the world for Belichick to hedge his bets the way he did. But then Brady came out of the gate slinging and with Garoppolo being adamant about wanting to not just get starter money but actually start somewhere, the situation became unsustainable.

What is asinine and makes zero sense is that Belichick - a guy with a loooooong history of booting out aging vets for young cheap talent is suddenly going to put his stock in a 41 year old QB resetting NFL history books and rewriting how we view age in the NFL in place of a young QB that reportedly the Patriots viewed as a future top 10 player. 

For one thing, trading Brady would've doubled his cap hit for 2017 and the team was already up against the cap. For another, trading Brady would've caused a revolt among the fan base and caused likely an irreparable rift between Belichick and Kraft. Finally, let's say he tries to dump Brady off on a QB-needy team - first off, the only teams that would actually pony up the likely asking price would be a team that is literally "a QB away from a Super Bowl title", which narrows the list of suitors considerably (a rebuilding team wouldn't want a 40-year-old QB worth 2 or 3 first round picks that they would rather spend actually rebuilding) and if he did send Brady to such a team - even an NFC team - the likelihood of that team becoming a threat to beat the Patriots in the playoffs would've been unacceptable to Belichick. So no, trading Brady was never an option.

[1ForTheThumb]

 

[tonyto36]

1 hour ago, Starless said:

I genuinely don't get why you think it's absurd. QB assessment, especially that of a 40-year-old QB, is an imprecise science at best, and at worst requires a lot of guesswork. If I'm Belichick, I sure as hell am not going into the 2017 season assured of the fact that my 40-year-old QB will be able to play at an elite level for 16 games + playoffs. If the choice was between going into the season with a 40-year-old QB who could lose it at any moment and a reliable failsafe on the roster and a 40-year-old QB with no reliable failsafe, I don't know a single rational person who'd choose the latter.

We've all seen what happens to top QBs around this age. It happened to Brett Favre, it happened to Peyton Manning, it happened to Marino; Elway was wise to walk away before it happened to him. Once a guy approaches that plateau of 300 career starts (Brady is at 287 counting playoffs), the uncertainty around his viability, even in the short-term, rises exponentially. It made all the sense in the world for Belichick to hedge his bets the way he did. But then Brady came out of the gate slinging and with Garoppolo being adamant about wanting to not just get starter money but actually start somewhere, the situation became unsustainable.

 

 

For one thing, trading Brady would've doubled his cap hit for 2017 and the team was already up against the cap. For another, trading Brady would've caused a revolt among the fan base and caused likely an irreparable rift between Belichick and Kraft. Finally, let's say he tries to dump Brady off on a QB-needy team - first off, the only teams that would actually pony up the likely asking price would be a team that is literally "a QB away from a Super Bowl title", which narrows the list of suitors considerably (a rebuilding team wouldn't want a 40-year-old QB worth 2 or 3 first round picks that they would rather spend actually rebuilding) and if he did send Brady to such a team - even an NFC team - the likelihood of that team becoming a threat to beat the Patriots in the playoffs would've been unacceptable to Belichick. So no, trading Brady was never an option.

Assessment of ANY sort is an imprecise science at best.  That hasn't stopped Belichick from trading guys away.  Even Seymour, a fringe HOFer who played another season and a half of elite play after leaving.    I think it is humongous revisionist history to suggest that Belichick came into this season thinking Brady would drop off so much that he'd be mediocre this season.  Even if Brady had a doomsday scenario and clearly dropped off, he'd still be a top 10 QB.   Not even Max Kellerman, a guy who has made his name trolling this topic thought Brady would suck this year.   And this is going off the ridiculous notion that Belichick needed to see Brady decline to know Brady was not an immortal, unaging deity.   Brady is going to age.  He is going to decline.  He is going to eventually suck.  And Belichick has never shown ANYTHING, in his fifty or whatever years of football, to being irrationally partial to any player.

No, maybe you didn't see those players falling off.  Favre was masked in 2009 by a loaded roster, as was Peyton.  Those guys and Marino didn't just fall off a cliff overnight like some try to paint it as.  Their surrounding cast just got a lot worse so they weren't protected and then all of a sudden their stats drop and then people assume they're not as good.  No.  Peyton was a mediocre QB in 2013 when he threw for 80 or whatever touchdowns and his decline was not sudden or unexpected if you actually evaluated the play and not the stats.

This is one legitimate argument.  But the Patriots have designed Bradys contract so that after next season they can dump him virtually cost free.   The rumored JG offers were escalated, so assumedly this would be one more season of Brady starting before he's shipped out after next season.  Then JG would take over after one more year of being backup.    You're right the list of places that would want Brady is pretty narrow.   Belichick's view of not trading guys that could become threats has always been garbage media talk.  He traded Bledsoe to the Bills.  If he gets a good deal, he's going to take it, and if he's looking to trade Brady I'm sure he's not worried in the first place.   By then, even if Brady keeps it up, he's 42 going on 43 and even by his plans, is two years away from retiring.   And that is his best case personal plan. 

[tonyto36]

48 minutes ago, 1ForTheThumb said:

 

The last one is pretty hilarious.  What exactly do you think Kraft is going to say?  "Yes I told him to trade JG and I'm the villain, hate me"???

Even if Kraft didn't explicitely mandate, there are a thousand ways Belichick could have been or felt cornered into having to do it.

I am shocked there are people who actually believe Belichick wanted to hold JG around for a half a season - and lose likely a first round pick in the process - just to see if Brady sucked this year.  That makes absolutely zero rational sense and would be the stupidest move in NFL history.   You don't give up a  bidding war for 6 games to see if your MVP QB is going to suck that season.   And you don't give up a guy you think is "the next big thing" and a future top 10 player for a 41 year old QB unless your owner squeezes you and corners you into doing it.

This isn't even being homers, this is just being stupid if you believe that.   Belichick holding on to JG for half a season because he was worried Brady would suck this year has to be one of the worst takes I've ever heard. 

[mission27]

1 hour ago, Starless said:

I genuinely don't get why you think it's absurd. QB assessment, especially that of a 40-year-old QB, is an imprecise science at best, and at worst requires a lot of guesswork. If I'm Belichick, I sure as hell am not going into the 2017 season assured of the fact that my 40-year-old QB will be able to play at an elite level for 16 games + playoffs. If the choice was between going into the season with a 40-year-old QB who could lose it at any moment and a reliable failsafe on the roster and a 40-year-old QB with no reliable failsafe, I don't know a single rational person who'd choose the latter.

Exactly.  With a 40-year-old QB it is going to be year to year.  I think everyone hoped and expected Brady to continue to be elite, not just this year but for a few years.  But given his age it was very useful to have a good backup with the potential to take over long term.  And its not just a "what if Brady falls off" kind of thing.  He could've got hurt in the first half.  He could've decided he wanted to retire after the end of the season.  He could've decided he wanted to play one more year after this and then retire.  If he gave the Patriots and Jimmy a definite timeline, they probably would've been able to keep him.  Any of that could've happened in the six months between the draft and when they traded him.  There were a bunch of reasons to keep him around that Bill obviously valued over the different in trade compensation between what they could get in May and November. 

The one thing I do potentially buy is that Bill wanted more clarity from Tom on how much longer he thought he had and planned to play, because he would've preferred to have the transition plan mapped out and thought doing that would keep Jimmy around.  Brady could definitely have reacted poorly to that conversation.  He is a competitor and thinks he is invincible and will play forever. That could definitely be a source of tension and isn't that hard to believe.  But that's a long, long way from Belichick wanting to go with Jimmy G over Tom and getting veto'd by Kraft, which seems more like a sensationalized ESPN narrative than something that would actually happen in the real world. 

[Hunter2_1]

I'd have 100% traded Jimmy. Tom is better. He's an elite QB in the middle of an MVP season. He wants to carry on as well. It's Christmas!! Yeah it would have been perfect to keep Jimmy, but he wanted to play now, and he wanted more money. Fair play. Now, let's draft the next heir.

[mission27]

3 minutes ago, tonyto36 said:

Even if Kraft didn't explicitely mandate, there are a thousand ways Belichick could have been or felt cornered into having to do it.

Belichick?  Feeling cornered?  Feeling... anything? 

Bill is smart enough to have thought this through.  I highly doubt he got blindsided with an ultimatum.  More likely... as they said at the time of the trade... this has been a very good problem to have for a few years, yes potentially a source of tension within the organization, but eventually it became unsustainable and they did what they had to do.

[mission27]

Its going to be funny when Bill, Bob, and Tom are holding up a Lombardi Trophy in a few weeks and these conversations mysteriously disappear until the Pats haters smell blood in the water again. 

[Apparition]

47 minutes ago, tonyto36 said:

This is one legitimate argument.  But the Patriots have designed Bradys contract so that after next season they can dump him virtually cost free.   The rumored JG offers were escalated, so assumedly this would be one more season of Brady starting before he's shipped out after next season.  Then JG would take over after one more year of being backup.    You're right the list of places that would want Brady is pretty narrow.   Belichick's view of not trading guys that could become threats has always been garbage media talk.  He traded Bledsoe to the Bills.  If he gets a good deal, he's going to take it, and if he's looking to trade Brady I'm sure he's not worried in the first place.   By then, even if Brady keeps it up, he's 42 going on 43 and even by his plans, is two years away from retiring.   And that is his best case personal plan. 

You can't really compare Belichick trading Bledsoe within the division to any potential trade of Brady. For one, Bledsoe was the first major trade he made as coach of the Patriots and while he probably didn't have a very high opinion of him to begin with, it was the only instance of him having ever traded a player to a team that could've potentially posed a threat to the Patriots, and it happened 16 years ago. Since then, look at where he's sent guys - Oakland, Cleveland, Tampa, Kansas City (when they still sucked), San Francisco... Your assertion that him not trading guys to teams that could threaten is "garbage media talk" is completely unsupported by facts.

Bottom line: He wasn't going to trade Brady before the 2017 season because there was no scenario in which it wouldn't have been a net negative and going into 2018, even with Garoppolo still on the roster, there was nowhere he could've sent him that would've gotten him a fair return.