ESPN hitpiece on Patriots (Rift with Brady/Belichick/Kraft) - Merged

[TB_Helmet]

I think you guys are misreading Curran's article. He's criticizing Wickersham's article. The office chair part is tongue in cheek. He's saying "LOOK AT BRADY, THINKS HE'S SO MUCH BETTER THAN HIS TEAMMATES, HE DEMANDS AN OFFICE CHAIR." It's a parody of what Wickersham is saying.

Also, one of Wickersham's dumbest points was the Hogan thing. He essentially said that Brady got Hogan hurt and that was proof the TB12 method doesn't work (because I guess a young Brady doesn't make that throw? It was truly a terrible argument). Look at this quote from Curran:

So labeling him fragile and nervous? Feels like projecting. A sore Achilles and whatever other maladies he’s dealing with (there’s been a lot of hand flexing in recent weeks) aren’t a byproduct of being 40 as much as they are related to being dropped in an industrial-sized dryer every weekend. And playing behind an offensive line – which he relentlessly praises – that has undersized players at center and left guard who get bulldozed by players bent on breaking Brady.

Curran here is criticizing the Hogan component of Wickersham's story.

Granted I don't know what the heck the whole second part of his article is supposed to be talking about, feels like it got cut off. But if he's trying to criticize Brady or give credence to Wickersham, then it's a hard left turn from the first half of the article.

Curran has been a staunch defender of the Pats, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, although I'd like to know the point of the last few paragraphs of this too. If anything I think this was a rush job by him and didn't get his point across well.

 

[Jackson 2]

If people here are referring to Curran's piece today on Brady, I think it's overwhelmingly positive, complimentary and supportive.

 

[RobertWeathers]

If people here are referring to Curran's piece today on Brady, I think it's overwhelmingly positive, complimentary and supportive.

At the same time calling him bitter, disgruntled, scorned and jaded.

 

[TB_Helmet]

If people here are referring to Curran's piece today on Brady, I think it's overwhelmingly positive, complimentary and supportive.

That's what I'm saying, although I'd appreciate if you could explain the second half to me

 

[RobertWeathers]

That's what I'm saying, although I'd appreciate if you could explain the second half to me

See 2271

 

[TB_Helmet]

See 2271

OK, so in that case the second half of the article completely undercuts / contradicts the first half. Just seems really weird to me. Curran is better than that IMO which is why I think I (and maybe you) are missing something; i.e. he had a different intention or was trying to be tongue in cheek again and it fell flat.

 

[archstanton543]

OK, so in that case the second half of the article completely undercuts / contradicts the first half. Just seems really weird to me. Curran is better than that IMO which is why I think I (and maybe you) are missing something; i.e. he had a different intention or was trying to be tongue in cheek again and it fell flat.

Yeah, I think he was trying to go for a certain tone and didn't nail it completely.

 

[The Main]

If people here are referring to Curran's piece today on Brady, I think it's overwhelmingly positive, complimentary and supportive.

Agree 100%. I Thought it was a great article from Curran. He takes a shot at WickerSHAM and the anonymous sources, don't see anything anti-Brady or anti-Patriots in that article. Just a needed reminder of the many sacrifices Brady has made for his Team and Teammates throughout the years.

 

[mosslost]

Bedard's piece is now unlocked for us unwashed non-BSJ members: Bedard: On ESPN's Patriots story, and what I've been told about Kraft, Belichick and Brady

I view him and Curran in the same regard - and both seem to be saying that Wickersham's stuff wasn't terrible.

There's no way to square the opinions of these 3 men with the pretty adamant denials from Brady, Belichick and Kraft. You just have to choose whom to believe.

Bedard's piece seems to nail the situation. It is his clear his sources have told him these things and why would they lie? And they are long time sources unless Bedard himself is lying. Also the whole thing is not great but does not really sound all that terrible. Everyone's hands are tied anyway and people will remember their reasons to be loyal. Honestly Kraft was there for Bill in 2000 in a big way, and honestly I think Bill will ultimately remember his loyalty to him, plus he is under contract anyway and so is Brady. Get to ring 7.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

If someone here said it I would quote them, instead I quoted Volin

Trying to backpedal and claim you were talking about Volin is weak, weak sauce. You were doing your usual rambling about the eeeevil "Garoppolites" you see around every corner and what they allegedly believe. You were thus clearly referring to way more people than Volin, and given the context were referring to people here. So put up or shut up and tell us who here has said that Brady was "selfish" for wanting to continue to be the starter.

 

[RobertWeathers]

OK, so in that case the second half of the article completely undercuts / contradicts the first half. Just seems really weird to me. Curran is better than that IMO which is why I think I (and maybe you) are missing something; i.e. he had a different intention or was trying to be tongue in cheek again and it fell flat.

I don't think I'm missing anything.

He took the first part of the article to say Wickersham was full of crap.

Then he took the Brady ***** out of Josh and portions of Shams piece to basically say Tom is a disgruntled, ungrateful volcano because for all hes done for the org, BB and Kraft have been treating him like ****.

I'm sure Tom , BB and Kraft really appreciate it.

Curran has a handle on this site. Lets see if he shows up.

 

[luuked]

It Curran speculation what tom Brady was thinking (how underappreciated he is and how unfairly he gets treated) when he got into an argument with mcd.
Starts out by explains that has a comfortable office chair at his locker while every one else has a folding chair, and that started this year.

But you are aware that Curran is pretty, pretty close to Brady (and AG), right ? If you read between the lines this is not a complete head product by Curran but rather something that he talked about with Brady.

 

[luuked]

Agree. He stooped low on this one.

How ? He is just reporting what is there. While Sham was just embellishing and getting fed wrong information. The two are nothing alike even though the attack the same topic. I dont get what the issue with Currans articles has been for many. There is nothing over the top in there and given his deep sources it is more relevant than anything an idiot national media guy could ever come up with.

I don't think I'm missing anything.

He took the first part of the article to say Wickersham was full of crap.

Then he took the Brady ***** out of Josh and portions of Shams piece to basically say Tom is a disgruntled, ungrateful volcano because for all hes done for the org, BB and Kraft have been treating him like ****.

I'm sure Tom , BB and Kraft really appreciate it.

Curran has a handle on this site. Lets see if he shows up.

I think it is pretty obvious that the entire AG thing has stirred some **** up internally and that is pretty much the point of he second paragraph.

 

[PF_SU]

Bedard's piece is now unlocked for us unwashed non-BSJ members: Bedard: On ESPN's Patriots story, and what I've been told about Kraft, Belichick and Brady

I view him and Curran in the same regard - and both seem to be saying that Wickersham's stuff wasn't terrible.

There's no way to square the opinions of these 3 men with the pretty adamant denials from Brady, Belichick and Kraft. You just have to choose whom to believe.

Bedard's piece is reasonable but for one part, the one where he claims that Belichick wanted to hang onto Garoppolo for as long as possible and if Brady continued to be great and Garoppolo didn't want to sign new deal in New England trade a tagged Garoppolo to some team.

Excuse me, but we are talking about a franchise tag in excess of 20 million. Who in the world would trade a useful asset for a 20+ million tagged QB with two starts in his career? That's completely unrealistic. The last opportunity to get anything of value for Garoppolo was at the trade deadline this season. That's why I don't believe the allegations that Kraft forced Belichick's hand in trading Garoppolo.

 

[Ivan]

Trying to backpedal and claim you were talking about Volin is weak, weak sauce. You were doing your usual rambling about the eeeevil "Garoppolites" you see around every corner and what they allegedly believe. You were thus clearly referring to way more people than Volin, and given the context were referring to people here. So put up or shut up and tell us who here has said that Brady was "selfish" for wanting to continue to be the starter.

WTF are you talking about, my post was a about a quote from Volin?

Volin said Brady was selfish, I actually haven’t seen anyone here say that, not even the 0-fer trolls. And I have no problem calling anyone out, and I quote them whenever I can to provide context.

Get a grip.


Find me any other post in this forum where you have had a tantrum over someone quoting a media member, or just stfu, either one, I don’t care which.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Then he took the Brady ***** out of Josh and portions of Shams piece to basically say Tom is a disgruntled, ungrateful volcano because for all hes done for the org, BB and Kraft have been treating him like ****.

I read it to be saying that Brady is rightfully ticked off for how he's been treated after all he's done. In other words, I see it as Curran taking Brady's side against the team. It also lines up with the parts of Bedard's piece where Brady was allegedly peeved about the team possibly moving on from him after all the money he's left on the table. And Kraft's alleged promise that if Brady took the home team discount it would "secure" his place with the team.

 

[luuked]

Bedard's piece is reasonable but for one part, the one where he claims that Belichick wanted to hang onto Garoppolo for as long as possible and if Brady continued to be great and Garoppolo didn't want to sign new deal in New England trade a tagged Garoppolo to some team.

Excuse me, but we are talking about a franchise tag in excess of 20 million. Who in the world would trade a useful asset for a 20+ million tagged QB with two starts in his career? That's completely unrealistic. The last opportunity to get anything of value for Garoppolo was at the trade deadline this season. That's why I don't believe the allegations that Kraft forced Belichick's hand in trading Garoppolo.

The thing that makes this completely stupid to me is that essentially BB is also in charge of the salary cap. Even if he didnt tell others in the organization his secret plans about JG if those involved a potential franchise + trade then he would have handled free agency and contract extensions completely differently or not thrown out free money at Gronk.

The franchise tag was never in play since at least end of February 2017 when most of he FA plans have been most probably set.

 

[Ring 6]

But you are aware that Curran is pretty, pretty close to Brady (and AG), right ? If you read between the lines this is not a complete head product by Curran but rather something that he talked about with Brady.

I don’t agree with that at all.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Bedard's piece seems to nail the situation. It is his clear his sources have told him these things and why would they lie? And they are long time sources unless Bedard himself is lying. Also the whole thing is not great but does not really sound all that terrible. Everyone's hands are tied anyway and people will remember their reasons to be loyal. Honestly Kraft was there for Bill in 2000 in a big way, and honestly I think Bill will ultimately remember his loyalty to him, plus he is under contract anyway and so is Brady. Get to ring 7.

Just read Bedard. Its 1000 times better than Wickerdick and Currans. Less sensationalism. More matter of fact. Do I believe all of it? Nope. Do I agree with Beard's take? Partially.

My Take: Sounds like Tom was paranoid big time when maybe he didn't need to be but I get it if he was. I might be too.

 

[ForThoseAboutToRock]

Bedard's piece is reasonable but for one part, the one where he claims that Belichick wanted to hang onto Garoppolo for as long as possible and if Brady continued to be great and Garoppolo didn't want to sign new deal in New England trade a tagged Garoppolo to some team.

Excuse me, but we are talking about a franchise tag in excess of 20 million. Who in the world would trade a useful asset for a 20+ million tagged QB with two starts in his career? That's completely unrealistic. The last opportunity to get anything of value for Garoppolo was at the trade deadline this season. That's why I don't believe the allegations that Kraft forced Belichick's hand in trading Garoppolo.

Fair enough. The franchise and trade idea - not sure it works anymore. The last example I can think of was Josh Norman, where it spectacularly disintegrated.

It's also possible that a QB hungry team with cap room would give up something of value in your above scenario - if they felt good enough about Garoppolo. Would that price have been higher than the 2nd rounder they got? We can only guess.