Tom Brady's interview with GQ

I bet Tom wishes he had just declined the honor of GQ Man of the Year.

Joker said:

another literary tough guy....love the "geek grows beard to look mean" fail

Click to expand...

Is this a bad week for Red Heads or what?

SVN said:

This guy read the first page of the wells report and asked the question, like the report came out few hrs ago. He didnt read the appeal transcripts or anything else. He wanted to be the GUY who got the first interview about post berman ruling. I put this a lot on Tom's PR team. They shouldve set expectations or maybe they did and this guy kept badgering anyway.

Click to expand...

Agreed. This is 100% on his PR team for not screening this total douchebag or for issuing advance notice that Brady can't comment or answer questions about an ongoing legal issue.

Bet you Brady is pissed at being ambushed by this hack with an inferiority complex.

Agree with all those here that say this writer comes off like a Grade A douche. He was able to get an interview with Brady under the false pretense of being GQ "Man Of The Year" and used the opportunity to fire question after question about The Wells Report

The douche even tries to intimidate Brady by saying that it will look bad for Brady if he doesn't answer.

you really have to listen to the BS report to get an idea of how insufferable this guy this. didn't get answers he wanted, he got all pouty and upset. real professional there.

Why you guys always posting this GQ ****!?!

fnordcircle said:

Why you guys always posting this GQ ****!?!

Click to expand...

Yeah, Unless GQ comes out with an issue where a fat dude wearing a pair of torn up jeans and a plaid shirt are the in thing, I'm not going to read it.

shmessy said:

Man of the Year doesn't necessarily mean it's a compliment, folks. Don't be cowed.

Click to expand...

Time's Person of the Year is the most influential person good or bad. Sports person of the year is supposed to honor achievement. I don't think Lance Armstrong won it the year he got caught doping or Barry Bonds or A Rod. Two different things.

Personally, I don't care. As a journalist, Klosterman has the rights to ask these questions. But for him to frame his piece on how Brady wouldn't answer the questions seems to just be a low blow.

PatsFanSince74 said:

I read the whole thing.

To me, the most important words spoken by Brady were words we should all take to heart: "I don’t really care how the Patriots are perceived, truthfully. I really don’t. I really don’t. Look, if you’re a fan of our team, you root for us, you believe in our team, and you believe in what we’re trying to accomplish. If you’re not a fan of us, you have a different opinion."

Hoping that people outside New England and Patriot Nation will "come around" to our point of view is ridiculous.

But, as Klosterman observes in his comparisons to other teams and athletes, eventually they will come around. It just might take 20 years or so.

Otherwsie, it's clear that GQ/Klosterman had an agenda. Whether it was Klosterman's or his editors', we can't know.

Click to expand...

Yep. The only decent thing to take from the article. Brady is basically saying eff everybody else, in the nicest way ever. I wish he provided more quotes as real as this one, but unfortunately, he's too smart to get caught up in the media and public BS.

Secondly, I can't believe they published this mess! This is GQ Man of the Year issue and this is the best article they could come up with on Brady? The idiot asking the questions had to have known that Brady wouldn't say much regarding Deflategate. So why even ask about it? The moron could've summed up Deflategate by simply reading transcripts available for anyone to see. Then wrote a piece about Brady explaining WHY he was named one of GQ's men of the year and got answers to more exclusive questions that could've created interesting headlines. I mean, how can he not mention the Superbowl, an argument for why he's better than Rodgers, ask him about the hypocrisy of the NFL, the Concussion movie starring Will Smith, offer a inside look at his relationship with Gisele, even questions about the marriage falling apart or talk about his kids. I mean what the... BLANK! The article is basically saying, Brady knew something because he didn't answer questions about it, but Brady didn't need to cheat because yada dada dada. Stupidest thing I've ever read. I wonder how some of these writers get a job, seriously. I am offended.

You can't do a photoshoot, showing all-American Brady in his overpriced mansion, wearing fur coats, and smiling and hugging footballs, looking like America's favorite, then shame him with the stupidest article I've ever read. I can't tell if he was meant to look and sound like America's biggest D-bag or if the editors just went in another direction, after the interview, because Brady gave them 45 minutes.

I am going to take myself away from the keyboard now and hope that GQ UK also selected Brady as one of their Men of the Year and hopefully followed it up with a competent article.

SVN said:

of course its now going to be spun like this
Tom Brady had a lot to hide in bizarre 'GQ' interview: This is one of the more bizarre turns of… http://dlvr.it/CmxZ7N #ForTheWin

more media coverage. Why did he do this interview to this idiot?

Click to expand...

I'm not going to lie, I wish Brady would have said "no and that's all I'm going to say on the subject ". This will get spun as once again (since it's quieted down) see he didn't deny it he cheated. I understand alot your not going to change their minds, but this will just bring it right back front and center.

Klosterman is (rightfully) being skewered on Twitter. It's almost 100% against him, pretty funny (hope this link works):

Klosterman sounds awfully close to cluster****, because that's what this article was.

Pure garbage. These writers absolutely know that anything he says becomes part of the record, in this or future proceedings. Any change in choice of words or explanation is used to paint him a liar by comparing that to prior statements.

If Brady says 'no', then he can be asked why he didn't say that immediately. If an explanation does not arise in prior proceedings, he is trying to find a better explanation. The answer "I cannot comment on ongoing litigation" should be enough for someone who is "on his side", as this clown professes to be.

Klosterman's biggest tproblem is that he has (as the lawyers would say) "assumed facts not in evidence." He asks Brady when he first became gnerally aware of something that has not been proven to happen at all.

I just read the article. Pure ****e. It actually seemed to me that Klosterman did not really know the material very well frankly. He also did not seem to understand his OWN line of reasoning, which is a bizarre thing to happen in written form especially in an article.

This is what I mean.. He states that Brady refers him to the 5 hours of legal transcript for his answer. He then goes and checks the transcript later in which Brady does indeed straight forwardly deny the accusations multiple times. But, to Klosterman this for some reason means it is illiogical for Brady to not just answer him in the negative in his interview and implies that Brady's refusal MUST mean guilt because "he does not want to keep lying". WTF?? Is he serious? He says Brady is tired of lying so he would not answer him in any way. Because he is tired of lying? That is just stupid. It is straw man and circular illogic at its best. (or worst) In fact the much more logical explanation is given by the author himself though he does not realize it. He goes on to say if Brady had answered my question "No" I could have then gone on to my 15 other questions I wanted to pepper him with about it. Wah Wah . This is pure ****e.

Brady just slammed the door on him that is what happened.

This was a horrible article. The author was unprepared and failed miserably. He was not familiar with the material as Brady had to point him to the hearing transcripts. He was asking Brady about a matter currently under litigation so obviously he was not going to talk about it. If Klusterfluck wanted to try, that's fine, but when Brady refused to take the bait, he needed to move on to other topics and there are plenty of them.

It's a men's style magazine. Brady is stylish and is married to a woman that has been the highest earning model for over a decade. Certainly there is a bounty of questions he could have asked about how that relates to his style. I personally would not find that interesting, but I have also never read the magazine.

He also could have asked about nutrition and fitness and we know that is something Brady takes very seriously. There are plenty of things this Klusterfluck could have asked about. But he put all his eggs into one basket hoping to break a big story and when Brady refused to play his game, he acted like a whiny brat and his article was a disaster. Very unprofessional. And good for Brady for sticking with his lawyers' advice and not talking about a matter under litigation. There was no way he could have helped his legal case, but a poorly worded answer to a question could hurt him.

why in the world you have to give an interview with GQ? I mean, don't you have a game to prepare for ? Tom, after so many years with BB, you still have a thing or two to learn ! Who is in his PR team anyway and how in the world they let this happen?

Florio thinks Brady needs to sit for an interview and let the truth come out after the legal proceedings are done.

Forget that.... it's Roger Goodell that needs to get interviewed so we know the REAL truth.

fnordcircle said:

Why you guys always posting this GQ ****!?!

Click to expand...

STFU you bigoted hater of us metrosexuals!