- Joined
- Nov 25, 2012
- Messages
- 7,198
- Reaction score
- 17,091
Here is the article. It's a little childish in my opinion, but that assumes Curran is right regarding the specific reasons.What did Curran think was the issue that Gronk had with the Pats? I think they treated him fairly over the years, especially considering his injury history.
Curran: Gronk had nothing more to give
1) Gronk wasn't happy the Pats picked up his option in 2016 instead of renegotiating with him for a better contract and he felt he was underpaid. (my opinion - if Gronk was willing to pay back his signing bonus in 2012 if he suffered a career ending injury, then this is legit; otherwise he knowingly traded immediate security for reduced long-term earnings, he didn't have to do that.)
2) Gronk felt peeved that BB was calling him out in front of the team for poor blocking in the 2017 training camp while he was still recovering from back surgery (I can sympathize a bit if this happened but we all know BB intentionally calls out his stars so that the team knows he doesn't play favorites).
3) Apparently somehow Gronk isn't thrilled that he negotiated incentives last year that he didn't reach. (I don't understand this complaint and Curran didn't explain it well; they were all attainable based on his 2017 performance).
EDIT - too slow....