Brady forced Kraft to remove it despite BB's wishes.Honestly, the lack of Oxford comma is really distressing to me. Fuck this team.
Brady forced Kraft to remove it despite BB's wishes.Honestly, the lack of Oxford comma is really distressing to me. Fuck this team.
Oops. I missed this. What you said.They released it so that the next time Bill or Tom stand at the podium and get asked dozens of questions about this stupid piece they can just refer back to the statement and move on.
I cannot imagine this is true, and this is irresponsibly sourced especially given that it's an ESPN piece essentially providing substance to an earlier, irresponsible and incorrect ESPN piece."Now 76 years old, Kraft ultimately will attempt to broker a solution. He has paid both Brady and Belichick tens of millions of dollars, won and lost some of the greatest games in NFL history with them, and has stood by both at their lowest moments. He apologized in front of a room of owners for Spygate. And he stood by Brady during Deflategate, even after he backed down and accepted the NFL's penalty. Kraft did so even though many staffers in the building believed there was merit in the allegation, however absurd the case. The team quietly parted ways with both John Jastremski and Jim McNally, the equipment staffers accused of deflating footballs -- they've never spoken publicly -- and Belichick reorganized the equipment staff. Kraft has privately told associates he knew that he went too far in his attacks against the league. "I had to do it for the fans," he has told confidants."
I think if you tag him, you trade him.Yup, or even just "Jimmy wont be signing the tag until the deadline", which fucks up the idea of a tag and trade since the Pats would have been cap jammed through free agency if they didnt rescind the tag.
None of this is riskless to JG, but he had enough leverage that it was a lot more complicated of a decision then "just tag Jimmy for a year"
Maybe the plan wasn't necessarily to tag and trade Jimmy.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.
And why do you believe that from a 100% unsubstantiated article?Thanks Carmine, I was just coming here to post on that. The hidden "nugget" in this 100% unattributed article is that "many staffers" believe Deflategate was TRUE and it was orchestrated by Brady. As others have noted, this is a hit piece aimed squarely at Tom Brady.
It's not complete BS, no. The truth of any story either exists or doesn't exist, and it's independent of whether the sources are named or not - so you're right about that. But from the point of view of a reader's confidence in the story, it's much less believable if you have a bunch of stuff in there that isn't even sourced, and then what stuff IS sourced comes from unnamed sources. Consider these two made-up sentences: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.
This sentence from the 1st graph of that story is such lazy-ass journalism I can't even comprehend trying to read further.But according to interviews with more than a dozen New England staffers, executives, players and league sources with knowledge of the team's inner workings, the three most powerful people in the franchise -- Belichick, Brady and owner Robert Kraft -- have had serious disagreements.
All this is true but the reality is that journalism often depends on unnamed sources and rejecting the veracity of a story on that basis alone is stupid. Every single story about the Trump White House is based on unnamed sources.It's not complete BS, no. The truth of any story either exists or doesn't exist, and it's independent of whether the sources are named or not - so you're right about that. But from the point of view of a reader's confidence in the story, it's much less believable if you have a bunch of stuff in there that isn't even sourced, and then what stuff IS sourced comes from unnamed sources. Consider these two made-up sentences:
"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 sentences would you believe more?
You name a source, and you can immediately see where that person is in relation to the story, how likely it is to be true. You don't name a source, and you can literally make stuff up. And when other reporters write things that contradict you, you can just fall back on, well my sources told me.... And there's no way to check.
So again, from a believability standpoint, it's much, much harder to buy a story that doesn't name a single source, especially when the organization running the story has already put out several stories on your team that have turned out to be crap.
Absolutely agree here. It's cowardice and poor journalistic integrity to publish an article that claims to be damaging to a party without a single, credible, named source. I think most rational people understand this. Patriot fans are being baited by the biggest sports network troll there is. Even Barstool and Deadspin need to be ranked above this rag.So again, from a believability standpoint, it's much, much harder to buy a story that doesn't name a single source, especially when the organization running the story has already put out several stories on your team that have turned out to be crap.
Right, but isn't there usually something clearer than "many staffers in the building?" What's that mean - could be 2 concessionaires.All this is true but the reality is that journalism often depends on unnamed sources and rejecting the veracity of a story on that basis alone is stupid. Every single story about the Trump White House is based on unnamed sources.
There may be other reasons for rejecting the veracity of this particular story, but the simple fact that the sources are unnamed shouldn't be a major factor.
It’s not all laughable that they had to. It’s the reality of dealing with an irresponsible, non-sourced article. Shit happens, responses are necessary.I know why they released it. It's just laughable that they had to. "United We Stand" IS a great follow up to "We are all PATRIOTS!", though. Go, Bobby Go!
It's really unbelievable. ESPN is Fox News (or CNN, not trying to make a political point).I cannot imagine this is true, and this is irresponsibly sourced especially given that it's an ESPN piece essentially providing substance to an earlier, irresponsible and incorrect ESPN piece.
I agree. Also, the piece does a poor job of attributing specific pieces of information to specific kinds of sources. He says at the beginning that sources include both people inside and outside the organization. But then when making key claims, he doesn't say whether that comes from somebody inside or outside. So its possible that all the Guerrero stuff is backed up by people inside the organization but all the stuff about BB, Kraft, and Brady is just third-hand rumor passed on by some people outside the organization who claim to have heard some shit.Right, but isn't there usually something clearer than "many staffers in the building?" What's that mean - could be 2 concessionaires.
Absolutely agree here. It's cowardice and poor journalistic integrity to publish an article that claims to be damaging to a party without a single, credible, named source. I think most rational people understand this. Patriot fans are being baited by the biggest sports network troll there is. Even Barstool and Deadspin need to be ranked above this rag.
Having unnamed sources, as I said in my previous post, does not impact the veracity of the story. It impacts the BELIEVABILITY of the story. So I'm going to want a lot more corroboration of a story with no sources or only unnamed sources than I would if the story was filled with key, named sources.All this is true but the reality is that journalism often depends on unnamed sources and rejecting the veracity of a story on that basis alone is stupid. Every single story about the Trump White House is based on unnamed sources.
There may be other reasons for rejecting the veracity of this particular story, but the simple fact that the sources are unnamed shouldn't be a major factor.
There is no way in hell anyone in the Patriots organization would agree to be a named source on a story touching these topics.Absolutely agree here. It's cowardice and poor journalistic integrity to publish an article that claims to be damaging to a party without a single, credible, named source. I think most rational people understand this. Patriot fans are being baited by the biggest sports network troll there is. Even Barstool and Deadspin need to be ranked above this rag.
If Blount would have just STFU.They clearly don't get along.
In fairness, the first public thing BB said after that clip was "We're on to off-season workouts."They clearly don't get along.
My problem is that there aren't many direct quotes and there isn't very clear sourcing of any of the key comments in the article. So he's saying "I verified it sufficiently for myself and ESPN, but we aren't sharing what that 'verification' looks like with you" and I think that's generally below the bar of what legit journalists do. Certainly, after the Mortensen debacle that ESPN's own public editor ripped, no one should rely on ESPN's editorial judgment until they prove it is warranted.
I have no idea if Wickersham is right or wrong---but his job is to put forward a story that is based on sourced information, and he's failed to describe that occurred.
It shouldn't impact the BELIEVABILITY of the story. That's the point. Because we don't live in a world where Nick Caserio is ever going to go on record in the way you seem to want. That is 100% not a possibility. Given that we live in the real world, all the stories we'll ever get on this kind of subject, true or false, will be based on unnamed sources.Having unnamed sources, as I said in my previous post, does not impact the veracity of the story. It impacts the BELIEVABILITY of the story. So I'm going to want a lot more corroboration of a story with no sources or only unnamed sources than I would if the story was filled with key, named sources.
Exactly. And on the important points of the story, the editors typically insists on more than just one source.I have no problem with anonymous sources. Its a risk for the reporter and his reputation. He doesnt have to tell us; he does have to tell his editors.
Really? I thought Wolff named and quoted Bannon pretty prominently, which has given his book substantially greater play and credibility, imo....Every single story about the Trump White House is based on unnamed sources.
Who are these people within the organization that are expressing these views of Brady?Not because it necessarily matters whether that’s true (he was good enough to lead a flawed team to a 13-3 record), but because it’s troubling that people in the organization would say that out loud to an ESPN writer. Can’t imagine anyone in the Pats’ organization doing that 3 years ago.
I agree with your last point, and perhaps I'm cynical or biased considering the source, but I think there's a real sleight of hand with the sources. As you recognize, it's hard to figure what's being attributed to whom, and I think that's purposeful so that he can use the veneer of having gotten some relevant information from credible sources and then backdoor the wilder claims from other sources.I agree. Also, the piece does a poor job of attributing specific pieces of information to specific kinds of sources. He says at the beginning that sources include both people inside and outside the organization. But then when making key claims, he doesn't say whether that comes from somebody inside or outside. So its possible that all the Guerrero stuff is backed up by people inside the organization but all the stuff about BB, Kraft, and Brady is just third-hand rumor passed on by some people outside the organization who claim to have heard some shit.
Its a badly crafted piece of journalism, possibly intentional deceptive in the way it describes its sourcing. But the mere fact of unnamed sources are utilized shouldn't be a reason for dismissing it.
I have obviously read it, as is demonstrated rather clearly by my pulling a speicfic quote from the article and posting it here. I suggest you read it as well.Have you?
As to the former, I thought I was clear enough, but if you’re looking to be the king of internet prdantry, I’ll rephrase: if anyone here has seriously considered the possibility that this is a piece of legitimate journalism, there’s not much evidence of that in this thread.
Maybe Wickersham’s article is a work of fiction, but when a respected journalist writes an article that lionizes one party and denigrates the others, the inference we usually draw has to do with the author’s sources, not his integrity.
I don't. The point was that among all the other junk, the article says ballghazi was real, and, according to multiple unnamed organization insiders, the allegations against Brady were true. The whole thing is a hack job, but it's one more bit of evidence that the real villain of the piece was Brady.And why do you believe that from a 100% unsubstantiated article?
This.It shouldn't impact the BELIEVABILITY of the story. That's the point. Because we don't live in a world where Nick Caserio is ever going to go on record in the way you seem to want. That is 100% not a possibility. Given that we live in the real world, all the stories we'll ever get on this kind of subject, true or false, will be based on unnamed sources.
Its exactly the same situation as when pieces are written about sensitive national intelligence matters. To say that you don't believe a story unless people are going on record is equivalent to saying that you'll never believe any story on the subject.
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.It shouldn't impact the BELIEVABILITY of the story. That's the point. Because we don't live in a world where Nick Caserio is ever going to go on record in the way you seem to want. That is 100% not a possibility. Given that we live in the real world, all the stories we'll ever get on this kind of subject, true or false, will be based on unnamed sources.
Its exactly the same situation as when pieces are written about sensitive national intelligence matters. To say that you don't believe a story unless people are going on record is equivalent to saying that you'll never believe any story on the subject.
If there is one organization that will cut your balls off for contributing to a story like this, it’s the Pats. And that’s a good thing.This.
This is what goes through my head every time someone complains about unnamed sources. Who's going to risk losing their job to satisfy some internet message board poster's demands for "named" sources?
Come back down to earth for a second, please.
This would be true, if sportswriters were journalists.None of this will come as any surprise to the principals.
If you want this story to be taken at all seriously, you have to go to BB, TB and Kraft. That’s journalism 101. Even if you are result oriented in the extreme, entirely blinded by anti-Pats bias, you realize this. You have to be able to write this sentence:
“We reached out the [three], who declined to be interviewed for this story.”
If you cannot write that sentence, then B.B., TB and Kraft say the writers never contacted us. And then you are dead.
They knew about this well before we did.
Thanks, took your advice. Appreciate the distillation.If you haven't spent the 10 minutes reading through the article...don't waste the 10 minutes.
...
Just typing this made me realize how much of a piece of shit this article really was. Christ, dont waste your time.
Did Woodward and Bernstein work for an organization that had previously allowed it's employees (Mortenson, et al) to make headline grabbing proclamations in error and then not immediately correct them when they knew them to be false? That routinely allows its employees to make broad unsubstantiated claims (Jackson) under the guise that "it is entertainment, not journalism"?-- snip --
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.
Many of us understand jounalism and are not saying that any article without a direct quote from a named source is unreliable. That is certainly not the case.Right, but isn't there usually something clearer than "many staffers in the building?" What's that mean - could be 2 concessionaires.
Really? Cuz BB comes out of this looking like gold, IMO.It's usually helpful when you read one of these stories that rely on unnamed sources to consider "which party comes out of this version of the story looking good?"
In other words, who would have benefited from having the story come out the way it did. That party is often the source of the reporter's information.
In this case, it's hard to say who looks good. It just feels like Wickersham got a lot of little kernels of incomplete information and then filled in the blanks himself with conjecture and inference. Thus the sense that there are probably a whole bunch of individual truths in the piece, but that the big conclusions being drawn (or implied) are flawed.
I agree with your last point, and perhaps I'm cynical or biased considering the source, but I think there's a real sleight of hand with the sources. As you recognize, it's hard to figure what's being attributed to whom, and I think that's purposeful so that he can use the veneer of having gotten some relevant information from credible sources and then backdoor the wilder claims from other sources.
If he'd said, "A member of the coaching staff confirmed that Brady and Belichick spoke for an hour on Thursday. A groundskeeper confessed to believing that Brady deflated the balls," we'd scoff. This method at least lets him write in such an ambiguous way we can't judge the credibility of any assertion.
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.Really? Cuz BB comes out of this looking like gold, IMO.
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."It shouldn't impact the BELIEVABILITY of the story. That's the point. Because we don't live in a world where Nick Caserio is ever going to go on record in the way you seem to want. That is 100% not a possibility. Given that we live in the real world, all the stories we'll ever get on this kind of subject, true or false, will be based on unnamed sources.
Its exactly the same situation as when pieces are written about sensitive national intelligence matters. To say that you don't believe a story unless people are going on record is equivalent to saying that you'll never believe any story on the subject.
But regardless of whether there is some tension between Belichick, Brady and Kraft, there is simply no factual support for this statement. There is no indication that Brady has demanded a trade or is going to retire and there is only pure speculation that Belichick could choose to retire rather than deal with all of this. The only even supposedly-factually-based support for that is this ridiculous paragraph:Now they're threatening to come undone the only way possible: from within.
So Wickersham is admitting that no one has any clue what Belichick is going to do. To paint this as any kind of "evidence" that the Patriots are about to "come undone" is absurd.Those interviewed describe a lingering sadness around the team, as if coaches and staff know that the end might be near. Both McDaniels and defensive coordinator Matt Patricia are expected to become head coaches; other assistant coaches might leave to join their staffs or for college jobs, or even retire. The imminent exodus raises the question going forward: Is it possible that Belichick would rather walk away than try to rebuild the staff with a 41-year-old Brady and another year of Guerrero drama -- all while trying to develop a new quarterback? Belichick being Belichick, those around him know nothing of his plans.
What does this even mean? It's like frantically telling someone, "My mother is dying!" and when the person asks what is wrong with her, you say, "Well, she's had a few minor medical issues and she'll probably die sometime in the next 30 years because she's 65 right now." The facts just don't warrant the framing.As Brady and Belichick left the field, bundled up in the cold, the only thing clear was that the beginning of the end started a long time ago, masked by success and the joy and pain of the rise, leaving both men this year's playoffs and their collective will to stave off the fall.