- Joined
- Jan 22, 2005
- Messages
- 31,008
- Reaction score
- 15,562
Please note: I'm not trying to ask this question in either an accusatory way or an exculpatory way.
I'm just trying to understand something: if apparently, as various Twitter comments, ESPN, PFT, etc., there were numerous warning signs that Hernandez was a potential problem child in the making, why did the Pats extend him this past fall?
They certainly didn't need to do it: they could have said "Let's wait until next offseason" (if Hernandez complained why GRONK got an extension and he didn't, they could point to both the stats and the fact that only one of the two has tested positive for drugs).
So why did they feel it was in their best interest to do it back then?
I'm just trying to understand something: if apparently, as various Twitter comments, ESPN, PFT, etc., there were numerous warning signs that Hernandez was a potential problem child in the making, why did the Pats extend him this past fall?
They certainly didn't need to do it: they could have said "Let's wait until next offseason" (if Hernandez complained why GRONK got an extension and he didn't, they could point to both the stats and the fact that only one of the two has tested positive for drugs).
So why did they feel it was in their best interest to do it back then?