This year's ESPN hit piece

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

That's not what I said. I said it makes it less believable, and I'd want more corroboration. Especially if the story runs contrary to what I understood to be true.

And no it's not remotely "exactly the same situation" as sensitive national intelligence matters. We see stories in the NFL all the time where sources are named.

Of COURSE it impacts the believability of a story to have sources named. I'll go back to my earlier example:

"Tom Brady told Belichick he wanted Garoppolo traded by the deadline," a source familiar with the Patriots told me.

"Tom Brady told Belichick he wanted Garoppolo traded by the deadline," said the Patriots' director of player personnel Nick Caserio in a phone interview last week.

Which of these comes off as more believable to you, especially if the quote seems to run contrary to what you thought you knew about Tom Brady? You're naturally going to believe a story more where there is a named source, especially one who is in a position to know. Look at that last quote versus this one:

"Tom Brady told Belichick he wanted Garoppolo traded by the deadline," said Tim Schwartz, the team's assistant equipment manager.

I mean you'd believe a quote from Caserio much more than this last one, but you might believe Schwartz more than an unnamed source.

It's human nature.

You're just avoiding the crux of the issue.

A) We don't live in a world in which Nick Caserio (or anybody equivalent who would really know what happened between TB, BB, and JG will ever go on the record. That is 100% not a realistic possibility. Of course, other football stories may use named sources, but not stories on this kind of topic with this organization.

B) Given A, the fact that Nick Caserio (or somebody equivalent) has not gone on the record for a story should have no impact on our judgement of the believability of a story.

Its just simple logic. If A is impossible, then whether or not A occurred shouldn't factor much into your judgement of an event.

There are plenty of other reasons to criticize this story (such as how he attributes information to sources and whether key claims are corroborated). But the mere fact that he uses unnamed sources for key claims shouldn't be a major factor.

 

[Dr. Winston O'Boogie]

Really? Cuz BB comes out of this looking like gold, IMO.

And why is that? We know B.B. most likely has no respect for this guy. Perhaps Wickersham wrote this from a Pro B.B. perspective so that it might cause a greater rift between he and Tom? I see nothing unbiased about this article, especially knowing his history.

 

[BaseballJones]

100% agreed. The only one that looked kind-of, sort-of bad is Brady, in a petulant child kind of way. But that doesn't surprise me about TB12 at all, and I love him to death. He's batshit crazy about being the best and playing for another half-decade.

I agree with all this too. BB looks great. Brady looks like a whiny spoiled athlete who, having reached a certain level of success (unprecedented level actually) now expects certain things and when he doesn't get his way, throws some sort of tantrum and gets butthurt.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

True, but based on the last Wickersham hit piece, some of the sources were of this type: "One AFC coach scours the locker room in Foxboro for listening devices."
Implication - Patriots cheat.

Yeah, I definitely don't think he is a good journalist, a particularly trustworthy one, or an unbiased one when it comes to the Patriots organization.

 

[loshjott]

As indicated last night, none of this came as a surprise to the principals. And it certainly will do nothing but help them for this playoff run.

This is a carefully crafted statement, enabled by the fact that certain people — certainly radio in Boston — flat out make shit up.

Much of the criticism of the piece is fair. The criticism over unnamed sources is complete fucking bullshit. Woodward and Bernstein did not name their sources. People spent forever trying by to figure out who Deep Throat was. There are good and obvious reasons for keeping sources confidential.

Maybe, but this'll be 90% forgotten by next Friday.

I have a feeling it was published today rather than next week sometime when the Pats are on the verge of playing is because ESPN was worried that Bedard would publish something similar but less salacious (and better sourced).

 

[tims4wins]

Kind of interesting timing, actually. The Pats are already off for the bye weekend. When BB next talks to the media, he will be on to Kansas City (or the Titans or Bills). They should have dropped this on Tuesday if they wanted reaction since the Pats were practicing Wednesday and Thursday. This will be forgotten by 8:15pm on 1/13, and will only be brought up again if Brady has a dud or if some fireworks occur in the offseason.

 

[mauf]

And why is that? We know B.B. most likely has no respect for this guy. Perhaps Wickersham wrote this from a Pro B.B. perspective so that it might cause a greater rift between he and Tom? I see nothing unbiased about this article, especially knowing his history.

Do you think Wickersham set out with an agenda to lionize BB and denigrate Brady? Or do you think he listened to his sources and reported what they told him? The latter seems far more likely to me.

As I said above, I think the concern here is that there were at least a couple folks in the Patriots’ organization who had an agenda and were willing to help Wickersham write a piece like this. That willingness is more concerning to me than the actual substance of the article, which obviously tells only one side of a multi-sided story.

 

[RetractableRoof]

You're just avoideing the issue. Here's the point:

A) We don't live in a world in which Nick Caserio (or anybody equivalent who would really know what happened between TB, BB, and JG will ever go on the record. That is 100% not a realistic possibility.

B) Given A, the fact that Nick Caserio (or somebody equivalent) has not gone on the record for a story should have no impact on our judgement of the believability of a story.

In fantasyland, a story with Nick Caserio on the record would be more believable. In the real world, the fact that he's not on the record should not a major consideration in how we evaluate the story. There are plenty of other reasons to criticize this story (such as how he attributes information to sources and whether key claims are corroborated). But the mere fact that he uses unnamed sources for key claims shouldn't be a major factor.

Except that in the real world (at least one town named Foxboro) there is no person of credibility who would go on record, but also no one who valued his job who would be an unnamed source for this story either. As stated above, BB would cut the balls off anyone talking to the press like this. So for me, I then have to start any reasoned valuation of this piece from the perspective that it is highly unlikely he had credible sources to start with. Who with access to BB, Kraft, and Brady would be willing to lose that access dishing to ESPN? It doesn't make sense to me, which means I have to downgrade the credibility of the piece.

The only person in my mind who would dish this way is someone scorned (nothing to lose) and the only one who seems to qualify there recently is Alex Guererro. I can see a scenario where he dishes to ESPN anonymously thinking it will make BB look bad, but it gets written with the authors narrative instead. Who knows.

 

[Stitch01]

I think if you tag him, you trade him.

Yeah, but they cant trade him until he signs the tender. So then they're either trading him under the gun at the start of the offseason with JG having something that looks like (but isnt quite) a veto right on where he's going because he hasnt signed the tender or they have to eat a $23MM charge or w/e on their cap through free agency that's not available to help a team with a 41 year old star quarterback.

So outside of insurance against a Brady career ending injury or performance decline over the last half of the season and insurance for a title caliber team season (and I actually was fine if they had held on to JG and just taken the comp pick after the season vs. the trade they did), I dont think they get much more in a trade than they did going the route that they did, particularly given the number of QBs and prospects likely to become available this offseason. I was never sure the franchise tag was worth the hassle, I kind of expected him to walk for the comp pick.

There's a very reasonable Madden GM case to make for just moving on to Jimmy G after the season, but I dont think it was ever going to happen with Tom Brady for this franchise for a litany of reasons and Id personally prefer to give up the long-term EV and keep Brady.

Keeping both quarterbacks always seemed like the worst possible solution to me.

Also worth remembering: there is one on the record comment about BB's thoughts about trading Tom Brady. It comes from John Lynch, and its worth considering BB's response.

 

[Curt S Loew]

Except that in the real world (at least one town named Foxboro) there is no person of credibility who would go on record, but also no one who valued his job who would be an unnamed source for this story either. As stated above, BB would cut the balls off anyone talking to the press like this. So for me, I then have to start any reasoned valuation of this piece from the perspective that it is highly unlikely he had credible sources to start with. Who with access to BB, Kraft, and Brady would be willing to lose that access dishing to ESPN? It doesn't make sense to me, which means I have to downgrade the credibility of the piece.

The only person in my mind who would dish this way is someone scorned (nothing to lose) and the only one who seems to qualify there recently is Alex Guererro. I can see a scenario where he dishes to ESPN anonymously thinking it will make BB look bad, but it gets written with the authors narrative instead. Who knows.

So it truly IS an anonymous source? This is getting better and better.

 

[joe dokes]

I'll say this, I was just at the gym and one of the TVs had ESPN on. This story was the chyron on the channel for the entire 100 minutes I was there. That is utterly unbelievable.

This story is just grist for the masses. Because it involves the Patriots.

There's that. "Kizer, Jackson, Haslam at odds" wont sell too many papers.

Maybe the closest analogue is Jerry Jones. When he farts, it makes the headlines. The difference is that Jerry wants the headlines more than he wants sex.

 

[BaseballJones]

You're just avoiding the crux of the issue.

A) We don't live in a world in which Nick Caserio (or anybody equivalent who would really know what happened between TB, BB, and JG will ever go on the record. That is 100% not a realistic possibility. Of course, other football stories may use named sources, but not stories on this kind of topic with this organization.

Maybe. But I cited a story from cbssports where Lynch from SF went on record detailing how the deal for JG went down. And that story cited a quote from BB where HE explained how the deal went down. For Wickersham to talk about how the deal went down and not get quotes - when people involved in the deal already had given quotes about it - makes it less believable.

It's not that he needed a named source for everything in the story - but he didn't have a SINGLE one.

B) Given A, the fact that Nick Caserio (or somebody equivalent) has not gone on the record for a story should have no impact on our judgement of the believability of a story.

That's just not realistic. Sorry. As you can see by the response of many here, of COURSE it impacts believability, especially when a story runs counter to what you've always understood to be the case. In this case, it's hard to believe some of what they say about Brady because it seems to be so NOT the Tom Brady we've known. And so, as the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and unnamed sources fall short of named sources when it comes to believability.

Its just simple logic. If A is impossible, then whether or not A occurred shouldn't factor much into your judgement of an event.

I've already said several times that the VERACITY of the story is not impacted by whether the sources are named or not. Either the story, for example, of JG not getting into the TB12 office, is true, or it is not true. Regardless of how Wickersham came to hear about it.

But the BELIEVABILITY of the story IS impacted.

I mean, consider gossip you hear about a good friend of yours - a person you've known over the years and believe to be of certain character. Then someone tells you, "Oh man, you're not gonna believe what Jim did last night - he got drunk and stole a car!" That runs SO against what you believe Jim to be, so you ask that person how he knows, and he says, "Oh I can't tell you who told me."

You're probably gonna have a hard time believing that story. But now say the same report comes to you and you ask how he knows and he says, "Well...I just saw Fred, and Fred was with Jim last night when it happened." And you know who Fred is and generally trust Fred's word. Suddenly the story is much more believable, right?

Either the story actually happened or it didn't (or it's something in the middle). The events of the previous night are not changed whether you heard it from a named source or not. But whether you BELIEVE it absolutely changes depending on the source.

There are plenty of other reasons to criticize this story (such as how he attributes information to sources and whether key claims are corroborated). But the mere fact that he uses unnamed sources for key claims shouldn't be a major factor.

All I'm saying is that with nothing but either (1) no sources at all - and there are plenty of pieces in this story without any sourcing at all, or (2) only unnamed sources, I'm less likely to believe it and want more corroboration. That's totally normal and reasonable.

There is a very real place for unnamed sources in journalism - this was my first professional field. But if you are going to have unnamed sources, you had BETTER have a lot of corroboration because you go into it knowing that your story with either no sources or only unnamed sources is a lot less believable.

 

[Ed Hillel]

If the plan all along was to tag and trade Jimmy, how does trading him mid-season "demonstrate loyalty to Brady"? Just tell Brady the plan is to do the same thing we did with Cassell. You are the QB until you don't want to be anymore, but we think this will maximize the deal we can get for Jimmy which makes the team better next year and beyond.

This is what I don’t understand. There’s no way Jimmy has more value at 25 million a year than 500k for the second half of this season. The only reason to keep him an extra 8 games is as insurance and since Brady is mostly healthy and the team went 7-1, I guess the end result is a higher draft pick and more cap flexibility. Scandalous.

 

[Dr. Winston O'Boogie]

Do you think Wickersham set out with an agenda to lionize BB and denigrate Brady? Or do you think he listened to his sources and reported what they told him? The latter seems far more likely to me.

As I said above, I think the concern here is that there were at least a couple folks in the Patriots’ organization who had an agenda and were willing to help Wickersham write a piece like this. That willingness is more concerning to me than the actual substance of the article, which obviously tells only one side of a multi-sided story.

I think that he definitely took a storybook approach when writing this. I don’t know how big his ego is, but it would not surprise me if he had a bone to pick and felt that he could help in the downfall of this dynasty just as he tried a couple years ago.

As for staffers, that could mean as little as a ball boy that helps on Sunday’s or it could be a disgruntled old timer that is ready to retire who is pissed that Bill belittled him or Tom wouldn’t write his grandkid an autograph on GameDay. Fortunately, he can hide behind his “sources” just as Mort did. Because integrity, yada, yada.

 

[OurF'ingCity]

Except that in the real world (at least one town named Foxboro) there is no person of credibility who would go on record, but also no one who valued his job who would be an unnamed source for this story either. As stated above, BB would cut the balls off anyone talking to the press like this. So for me, I then have to start any reasoned valuation of this piece from the perspective that it is highly unlikely he had credible sources to start with. Who with access to BB, Kraft, and Brady would be willing to lose that access dishing to ESPN? It doesn't make sense to me, which means I have to downgrade the credibility of the piece.

But there are multiple places in the story where Wickersham specifically quotes a "Patriots staffer" or "Patriots coach." And despite the fact that Wickersham is a purple-prose writing hack, I highly doubt he would simply lie about who his sources were. (I think it's almost a certainty that Guerrero is at least one source as well, of course, since Wickersham cites one e-mail that purports to be from Belichick only to Guerrero.)

 

[loshjott]

Simmons tweet:
For a 40 year old QB, 65 year old coach and 76 year old owner, is this the beginning of the end?

Captures the much ado about nothing feel to me.

 

[AB in DC]

A lot of people here don't seem to understand much about the use of anonymous sources. Here are some good pieces about the best way to use them and the perils of using them poorly.


https://theconversation.com/how-should-you-read-unnamed-sources-and-leaks-71214

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-to-trust-a-story-that-uses-unnamed-sources/

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/18/public-editor/the-risk-of-unnamed-sources-unconvinced-readers.html

 

[PedroKsBambino]

But there are multiple places in the story where Wickersham specifically quotes a "Patriots staffer" or "Patriots coach." And despite the fact that Wickersham is a purple-prose writing hack, I highly doubt he would simply lie about who his sources were. (I think it's almost a certainty that Guerrero is at least one source as well, of course, since Wickersham cites one e-mail that purports to be from Belichick only to Guerrero.)

Guerrero or BB could easily have told someone about the email, who then told Wickersham. I don't think we should conclude Guerrero was a source just from the email.

This all goes to why the sourcing, and the track record, are important of course.

 

[eddiew112]

I loved the part where it states that new players call Brady "sir"

Dropping these kind of anecdotes without any context is such garbage. Is this a joke that younger guys have because Brady is old enough to be their father? There was a story earlier this year about players ribbing him about his age because of a new locker room chair. Do players call Brady that behind his back because he is a jerk, or aloof, or not easy to relate to? There are literally dozens of examples of former and current Patriots players on the record that have spoken highly about Brady as a teammate and a person.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Yeah, but they cant trade him until he signs the tender. So then they're either trading him under the gun at the start of the offseason with JG having something that looks like (but isnt quite) a veto right on where he's going because he hasnt signed the tender or they have to eat a $23MM charge or w/e on their cap through free agency that's not available to help a team with a 41 year old star quarterback.

So outside of insurance against a Brady career ending injury or performance decline over the last half of the season and insurance for a title caliber team season (and I actually was fine if they had held on to JG and just taken the comp pick after the season vs. the trade they did), I dont think they get much more in a trade than they did going the route that they did, particularly given the number of QBs and prospects likely to become available this offseason. I was never sure the franchise tag was worth the hassle, I kind of expected him to walk for the comp pick.

There's a very reasonable Madden GM case to make for just moving on to Jimmy G after the season, but I dont think it was ever going to happen with Tom Brady for this franchise for a litany of reasons and Id personally prefer to give up the long-term EV and keep Brady.

Keeping both quarterbacks always seemed like the worst possible solution to me.

Also worth remembering: there is one on the record comment about BB's thoughts about trading Tom Brady. It comes from John Lynch, and its worth considering BB's response.

I think you are basically right here, but Jimmy’s quasi veto doesn’t amount to that much - if you assume he wants to play. The Patriots might take a value hit, yes, because Jimmy gets a little more say in where he goes. But it’s not as if he has the leverage to force them to cut him loose for a comp pick.

 

[Ed Hillel]

If you want to add to the fun, Jerry Thornton is claiming Brady has a broken throwing hand.

 

[drbretto]

"some staffers believed there was merit" doesn't mean anything. I got the impression even BB wasn't entirely sure Brady didn't do it at first. They threw up so much misinformation right off the bat that anyone would think it's plausible. The way it's written is asinine, though, because it implies that the Patriots are divided on what happened, as opposed to a reference to a confusing time.


And for the people arguing about unnamed sources, I feel like some of you are arguing about unnamed sources in a vacuum. It's how he's using it that undercuts his credibility. There's no indication where the sourced info starts and his conjecture begins. Combined with the vagueness of the sources in the first place, not to mention the exaggerated and misleading tweet that preceded and hyped this thing up, it's really hard to take it too seriously.

 

[genoasalami]

All I care about is finding a QB they can count on going forward. The rest is noise. JG is gone. Brady will be 41 next season. 41 is 41.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

Except that in the real world (at least one town named Foxboro) there is no person of credibility who would go on record, but also no one who valued his job who would be an unnamed source for this story either. As stated above, BB would cut the balls off anyone talking to the press like this. So for me, I then have to start any reasoned valuation of this piece from the perspective that it is highly unlikely he had credible sources to start with. Who with access to BB, Kraft, and Brady would be willing to lose that access dishing to ESPN? It doesn't make sense to me, which means I have to downgrade the credibility of the piece.

The only person in my mind who would dish this way is someone scorned (nothing to lose) and the only one who seems to qualify there recently is Alex Guererro. I can see a scenario where he dishes to ESPN anonymously thinking it will make BB look bad, but it gets written with the authors narrative instead. Who knows.

Agreed. I downgrade the piece because he's a shitty journalist who is likely to have shitty sources and did some sketchy looking things in the ways he attributed claims to sources, not because the sources are unnamed per se.

 

[OurF'ingCity]

And for the people arguing about unnamed sources, I feel like some of you are arguing about unnamed sources in a vacuum. It's how he's using it that undercuts his credibility. There's no indication where the sourced info starts and his conjecture begins. Combined with the vagueness of the sources in the first place, not to mention the exaggerated and misleading tweet that preceded and hyped this thing up, it's really hard to take it too seriously.

This is where I'm at. One of the things that stood out to me was just how vague the sources were described as. A few places specifically mention a "coach" or "high-ranking staffer" but for the most part all the facts are attributed generally to "Patriots staffers." I honestly have no idea what that word even means - are coaches also "staffers" or are they distinct (and if the former, why does Wickersham sometimes specifically cite to Patriots coaches)? Are people who work in the building (ball boys, janitors, Kraft's secretary) "staffers" as well, or is it limited to people who actually report directly or indirectly to Belichick? And are they current employees, or former employees (obviously, former employees would be distinctly less believable than current ones, but it also wouldn't make sense why a former employee would need anonymity if he or she was no longer under threat of being fired by the team)?

Also, as others have pointed out, it's not clear which sources have direct knowledge and which have second-hand knowledge. When Wickersham writes that "many staffers" believed the Deflategate allegations, is that because he interviewed 5 people, all of whom said they thought the allegations had merit? Or did he interview a single person who said something like "Well, I never thought those allegations were serious but I heard from a friend in the equipment department that some people there initially believed the story." Those scenarios are wildly different but both could be the case based on the vague description in the story.

Given that, I have to imagine that much of the story is based on hearsay, second-hand knowledge and the like, because if it wasn't, wouldn't ESPN have a strong incentive to say "high-ranking Patriots employees" or "a source with first-hand knowledge told ESPN that..." I think the absence of almost any statements like this is very telling in this case.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

Yeah, but they cant trade him until he signs the tender. So then they're either trading him under the gun at the start of the offseason with JG having something that looks like (but isnt quite) a veto right on where he's going because he hasnt signed the tender or they have to eat a $23MM charge or w/e on their cap through free agency that's not available to help a team with a 41 year old star quarterback.

So outside of insurance against a Brady career ending injury or performance decline over the last half of the season and insurance for a title caliber team season (and I actually was fine if they had held on to JG and just taken the comp pick after the season vs. the trade they did), I dont think they get much more in a trade than they did going the route that they did, particularly given the number of QBs and prospects likely to become available this offseason. I was never sure the franchise tag was worth the hassle, I kind of expected him to walk for the comp pick.

There's a very reasonable Madden GM case to make for just moving on to Jimmy G after the season, but I dont think it was ever going to happen with Tom Brady for this franchise for a litany of reasons and Id personally prefer to give up the long-term EV and keep Brady.

Keeping both quarterbacks always seemed like the worst possible solution to me.

Also worth remembering: there is one on the record comment about BB's thoughts about trading Tom Brady. It comes from John Lynch, and its worth considering BB's response.

What incentive would JG have to not sign the tender once it was (hypothetically) made?

 

[E5 Yaz]

At some point this weekend, I expect the Patriots—either owner Robert Kraft or coach Bill Belichick, or both—could come out swinging against Seth Wickersham’s ESPN story detailing multi-headed struggles atop the best current franchise in American professional sports. I expect there to be mass speculation that this is Belichick’s last season coaching the Patriots. But let me raise this one question as we ponder the possible end of a great generation of football: Isn’t it amazing that Kraft and Belichick, along with quarterback Tom Brady, have lasted 18 years together?

https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/01/05/patriots-espn-story-bill-belichick-tom-brady-robert-kraft-peter-king

 

[lambeau]

41 is 41.
Montana and Favre both went to Conference Championship games after being traded, but the trades were the right thing.
BB wanted to wait for every possible data point. TB didn't like that.
Bedard confirmed the basic story through his own sources--you trust the reporter or you don't. Watergate was OK journalism.

 

[Auger34]

Lombardi coming on EEI now.

Wickersham will be on at 3 pm.

Were you able to listen to the Lombardi interview? If so, what did he say? He's the most connected to Belichick and his thinking out of anyone in the media.

 

[RetractableRoof]

So it truly IS an anonymous source? This is getting better and better.

I never said using an anonymous source was bad. I merely said that the author needed to tighten up the sources because of credibility issues.

The throwaway was just speculation/devils advocate on who might be a source... someone who might invalidate my thought process. Keep an open mind and all... Feel free to snark away

 

[patinorange]

If you want to add to the fun, Jerry Thornton is claiming Brady has a broken throwing hand.

Now we're talking!
This whole thing is the price of being on top for so long. It's unprecedented and wonderful.

 

[H78]

41 is 41.
Montana and Favre both went to Conference Championship games after being traded, but the trades were the right thing.
BB wanted to wait for every possible data point. TB didn't like that.
Bedard confirmed the basic story through his own sources--you trust the reporter or you don't. Watergate was OK journalism.

Agreed with all of this.

 

[Stitch01]

What incentive would JG have to not sign the tender once it was (hypothetically) made?

He cant get traded until he signs it. So if the idea is to tag and trade for value, it gives him a big say on where he goes and puts the Pats on the clock to make a decision early in the offseason process. Its not riskless because the Pats can withdraw the tender, but then he's an unrestricted FA, which if he wants to play he may view as a better outcome and, as long as the tender is out there, he has the option to sign the contract if he sees the market drying up. If the Pats wanted to pay him $24MM next year to be a backup QB, yeah, there's ultimately very little he could have done about it immediately. I dont think burning $24MM for some insurance plus the right to attempt to pay Jimmy G like an elite quarterback in 2019 or 2020 was a good move (and I think JG leaving or getting a contract where he's no longer a real asset i.e Flacco/Stafford/Carr (?) are both potential outcomes of the franchise as a backup plan. What happens if Brady plays at an MVP level in 2018 and is now a six or seven time SB champion? Would it suddenly be easier to cut bait?), but that was an option and I understand the positives.

Maybe none of this would have been an issue, JG would have been fine signing the franchise tag and waiting a year and outside of the material salary cap hit it would have worked. Maybe they could have worked out a trade and tag that all parties were happy with that brought back more than a high(ish) 2nd round pick. But I think saying "they could have just tagged him" is too simplistic. There were ways that gets messy enough if JG's primary goal for 2018 was to start at QB or he had a particular destination in mind that maybe making the trade midseason isnt giving up much.

Also, of course trading Brady was an option, and maybe the "right" option. But I can see the reasons why no one in the Pats organization wanted to do that and Im happy they didnt and will remain perfectly happy they didnt even if Brady sucks next year (and he might, he's 41). But that's just personal preference from what I want out of my Pats fan experience, YMMV.

 

[tims4wins]

Also JG could have sat out more than half the season on the franchise tender, which would have probably forced the Pats into signing a veteran backup in addition to drafting a developmental QB. So tack on another few million, potentially, to that scenario.

 

[H78]

I struggle to understand why people don’t view a one-year investment of $24M in an extremely talented backup quarterback that could then take over the reigns a year later as anything but a short-term sacrifice for a rock-solid long-term investment.

Well, I do understand - it’s really bred out of undying loyalty to TB12 - but I don’t understand how so many normally rational thinkers pocket their better judgement in favor of grasping onto a player that’s very close to becoming a nostalgia act.

***ducks***

 

[Stitch01]

He could have, and he could have threatened to do that if he didnt want to be tagged. I dont think it ever gets to that point though and I dont know if it would have been credible, that's like $14MM bucks to sit out. I know Mankins did it, but he seemed like a bit of a unique personality and the $$$ wasnt as big.

 

[Marciano490]

I struggle to understand why people don’t view a one-year investment of $24M in an extremely talented backup quarterback that could then take over the reigns a year later as anything but a short-term sacrifice for a rock-solid long-term investment.

Well, I do understand - it’s really bred out of undying loyalty to TB12 - but I don’t understand how so many normally rational thinkers pocket their better judgement in favor of grasping onto a player that’s very close to becoming a nostalgia act.

The one who's likely to win MVP again this year?

Let's say he regresses 5-10% every year. How long till he and JG are equals, and at that point, how old is JG?

 

[H78]

The one who's likely to win MVP again this year?

Let's say he regresses 5-10% every year. How long till he and JG are equals, and at that point, how old is JG?

I think he’s already regressed at least 5-10% this year, and will likely do so again next year. And you’re assuming he doesn’t suddenly regress 30, 40, 50% suddenly in one year.

I think they’re equals ~2-3 years. Jimmy G is an excellent quarterback.

And let’s be honest about the MVP thing (which people keep bringing up): it’s Gurley. Brady will win because of his position, but Gurley had an unbelievable year and is going to be robbed of the award.

Also: play across the league seemed down this year. Brady had a great year, but compared to years past, he didn’t blow anyone away. He’s going to win because QBs have an inherent advantage in voting and so many other QBs suck in the NFL. And Rodgers was injured for a large portion of the year.

 

[tims4wins]

I struggle to understand why people don’t view a one-year investment of $24M in an extremely talented backup quarterback that could then take over the reigns a year later as anything but a short-term sacrifice for a rock-solid long-term investment.

Well, I do understand - it’s really bred out of undying loyalty to TB12 - but I don’t understand how so many normally rational thinkers pocket their better judgement in favor of grasping onto a player that’s very close to becoming a nostalgia act.

***ducks***

The one who's likely to win MVP again this year?

Let's say he regresses 5-10% every year. How long till he and JG are equals, and at that point, how old is JG?

Exactly. Odds are that Brady (and the team) have a pretty similar year next year. So at that point, you would be willing to just cut bait with Brady, for an unsure thing with Jimmy? I sure as hell wouldn't. So what then? You can't franchise him again. So you get nothing for him, or a comp pick in like 2020 or whatever. It's similar thinking as Collins when you think about it - get the best possible return ASAP

 

[RetractableRoof]

I struggle to understand why people don’t view a one-year investment of $24M in an extremely talented backup quarterback that could then take over the reigns a year later as anything but a short-term sacrifice for a rock-solid long-term investment.

Well, I do understand - it’s really bred out of undying loyalty to TB12 - but I don’t understand how so many normally rational thinkers pocket their better judgement in favor of grasping onto a player that’s very close to becoming a nostalgia act.

Because it's financially a non-starter. It was my preference until it was explained that in order to franchise him - in that moment they have to have the cap space to do so. How many players on the team have to be released to make the tag happen - or contracts re-done? It doesn't appear to actually work money wise. And even if they did cut/restructure the roster to do it, you are likely damaging the 2018 team to do it - and then what is the point?

if I'm wrong about it being possible then I agree w/ your first statement.

 

[SeoulSoxFan]

The joint response from Kraft, Belichick, and Brady should just be a tweet of this:

Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks

I love this board so much. That was fun Wiki'ing the story behind the painting.

 

[heavyde050]

The one who's likely to win MVP again this year?

Let's say he regresses 5-10% every year. How long till he and JG are equals, and at that point, how old is JG?

I would guess the original hope when Jimmy was drafted was that point of equality would have occurred at the latest by 2017.
Based on the way he is playing now, I would place my bet at 2019, two years too late. Oh well.
Jimmy (5 wins with SF notwithstanding) is not better than Brady today, and I would still wager on Brady for 2018.

 

[H78]

Because it's financially a non-starter. It was my preference until it was explained that in order to franchise him - in that moment they have to have the cap space to do so. How many players on the team have to be released to make the tag happen - or contracts re-done? It doesn't appear to actually work money wise. And even if they did cut/restructure the roster to do it, you are likely damaging the 2018 team to do it - and then what is the point?

if I'm wrong about it being possible then I agree w/ your first statement.

2019 and beyond.

There would be roster sacrifices in 2018, I totally agree. But I’m more worried about, say, 2019-2030 than just 2018. I’m willing to bet BB felt the same way.

 

[Marciano490]

I think he’s already regressed at least 5-10% this year, and will likely do so again next year. And you’re assuming he doesn’t suddenly regress 30, 40, 50% suddenly in one year.

I think they’re equals ~2-3 years. Jimmy G is an excellent quarterback.

And let’s be honest about the MVP thing (which people keep bringing up): it’s Gurley. Brady will win because of his position, but Gurley had an unbelievable year and is going to be robbed of the award.

Also: play across the league seemed down this year. Brady had a great year, but compared to years past, he didn’t blow anyone away. He’s going to win because QBs have an inherent advantage in voting and so many other QBs suck in the NFL. And Rodgers was injured for a large portion of the year.

Robbed of the award why? It's the way it's always been. This isn't some Williams v. DiMaggio incident. Also, that Rams offense is stacked. The Patriots offense is Brady and Gronk. As for Rodgers, the 6 games he did play before being injured, his numbers were down for him and worse than Brady's. Not saying he wouldn't have trued up, but Brady should've been MVP last year, too, by that logic. So, let's compromise and say Brady is coming off 1.5 consecutive MVP seasons.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

He cant get traded until he signs it. So if the idea is to tag and trade for value, it gives him a big say on where he goes and puts the Pats on the clock to make a decision early in the offseason process. Its not riskless because the Pats can withdraw the tender, but then he's an unrestricted FA, which if he wants to play he may view as a better outcome and, as long as the tender is out there, he has the option to sign the contract if he sees the market drying up. If the Pats wanted to pay him $24MM next year to be a backup QB, yeah, there's ultimately very little he could have done about it immediately. I dont think burning $24MM for some insurance plus the right to attempt to pay Jimmy G like an elite quarterback in 2019 or 2020 was a good move (and I think JG leaving or getting a contract where he's no longer a real asset i.e Flacco/Stafford/Carr (?) are both potential outcomes of the franchise as a backup plan. What happens if Brady plays at an MVP level in 2018 and is now a six or seven time SB champion? Would it suddenly be easier to cut bait?), but that was an option and I understand the positives.

Maybe none of this would have been an issue, JG would have been fine signing the franchise tag and waiting a year and outside of the material salary cap hit it would have worked. Maybe they could have worked out a trade and tag that all parties were happy with that brought back more than a high(ish) 2nd round pick. But I think saying "they could have just tagged him" is too simplistic. There were ways that gets messy enough if JG's primary goal for 2018 was to start at QB or he had a particular destination in mind that maybe making the trade midseason isnt giving up much.

Also, of course trading Brady was an option, and maybe the "right" option. But I can see the reasons why no one in the Pats organization wanted to do that and Im happy they didnt and will remain perfectly happy they didnt even if Brady sucks next year (and he might, he's 41). But that's just personal preference from what I want out of my Pats fan experience, YMMV.

I think if the plan was to tag-and-trade Jimmy he certainly would have had some leverage about his destination but that the incentives of everybody involved would have been to get something wrapped up quickly. The Patriots would want to move on. Jimmy would want things to happen relatively fast, before teams looked at other options or started to think too much about the draft. And assuming a competitive market, buyers would be incentivized to move quickly with real offers.

The most likely scenario is that it would have worked similar to the Cassel tag-and-trade and everything would have been wrapped up around the beginning of March.

 

[Ed Hillel]

For anyone who wants come measured, reasoned analysis to all this, Rob Parker is on Colin Cowherd, with two alternating headers: “Is Tom Brady too self-absorbed” and “Did Belichick Intentionally Sabotage the Patriots’ Future?”

2019 and beyond.

There would be roster sacrifices in 2018, I totally agree. But I’m more worried about, say, 2019-2030 than just 2018. I’m willing to bet BB felt the same way.

This has been discussed by many posters many times already. We all understand there two reasonable thoughts here. Why are we still discussing?

 

[H78]

Robbed of the award why? It's the way it's always been. This isn't some Williams v. DiMaggio incident. Also, that Rams offense is stacked. The Patriots offense is Brady and Gronk. As for Rodgers, the 6 games he did play before being injured, his numbers were down for him and worse than Brady's. Not saying he wouldn't have trued up, but Brady should've been MVP last year, too, by that logic. So, let's compromise and say Brady is coming off 1.5 consecutive MVP seasons.

There is so much I disagree with here I really don’t know where to begin.

 

[Captaincoop]

Really? Cuz BB comes out of this looking like gold, IMO.

Jesus, rereading it, you're right.

So maybe some of it is coming from people within the coaching staff or front office that shared BB's frustration with not being able to do as he pleased with the QB situation.

Who knows. That angle makes some sense though.

 

[RetractableRoof]

2019 and beyond.

There would be roster sacrifices in 2018, I totally agree. But I’m more worried about, say, 2019-2030 than just 2018. I’m willing to bet BB felt the same way.

But if you are telling Brady to drive a car w/ 3 wheels in 2018 you may as well just trade him instead and roll w/ JG (pun intentional).

 

[Dan Murfman]

For anyone who wants come measured, reasoned analysis to all this, Rob Parker is on Colin Cowherd.

This has been discussed by many posters many times already. We all understand there two reasonable thoughts here. Why are we still discussing?

And CHB will be on WFAN with the new crew at 3 pm.