If that’s how my post read, then maybe I didn’t articulate it well. The degree to which Belichick was willing to placate Brady and Gronkowski - whether through contracts, long-term commitment, practice flexibility, giving them latitude on how they approach their work schedule, willing to make an exception to the “better too early” mantra - were consistent with organization > individual player thinking. Sometimes doing so is not in the best interest of the team. Letting two Hall of Famers walk out the door, both thrilled to play for another coach, is simply not in the best interest of the team.
Fair enough, and this is where I come back to the value of hindsight: We're able to sit here and evaluate the sequence of events from whenever they start until now, and then say it would've made sense to do 'x, y, and z' to avoid 'a, b, and c'.
Would adapting the organization > player thinking in 2017/2018, to avoid Brady/Gronk leaving in 2020, have been wise? Probably, depending on extent.
"Letting two Hall of Famers walk out the door, both thrilled to play for another coach, is simply not in the best interest of the team."
In this case, yes, it doesn't appear to have been best for the team, but that principle alone isn't always valid. The devil is in the details. How well are they still playing? For how much longer will they continue to play well? What are the alternatives should we let said player go? How much would they cost to retain?
Using those criteria, it didn't make sense to let Brady go, but it was a lot murkier with Gronk. We're now able to know that Gronk's drop-off stems more from a lack of rest and nicks/dings rather than permanently breaking-down, but I wouldn't have called someone unreasonable if they said Gronk was shot after the 2018 season.
I also don't think that players need to be "thrilled" about playing for their coach; there's a fine line, obviously, with Arians being on one side of the spectrum and Belichick on the other in terms of how close they let themselves get with their players.
Brady and Gronk wanted a change, Arians is a unique guy, and they've hit it off (in no small part due to their on-field success). That shouldn't be an indication that Arians' approach is better than Belichick's or vice-versa; they're different. I could see the inverse, where Brady spends the first 10 years of his career with someone like Arians, and then moves on to play for someone like Belichick and is rejuvenated, refreshed, and excited because he's playing for someone who appreciates attention to detail, hard-work, and winning, a culture that would really resonate with Brady had he been in a different environment for the first part of his career.
That's not to say Belichick can't learn/improve personnel management going forward, and it's also not to say there isn't some value in Arians' approach, but I do think some of this comes down to change and a new environment (after spending 20 years in the same place, under the same coach) leading to a bump in morale.
profootballtalk.nbcsports.com
