Skip to content

Kraft says Brady wanted to come back in 2008

ne-kc-tom-brady Getty Images

There’s often a disconnect between the rule changes proposed by the Competition Committee and the rule changes ultimately adopted by 24 or more of the NFL’s owners.  Hardly a rubber-stamp process, some proposals simply don’t make it.

This year, one influential owner has made it known that he supports the proposed revision to the rules regarding injured reserve.

Currently, any player who lands on IR is done for the season.  The proposal would give injured players an opportunity to return in the same season.

“I think the biggest [rule change] is being able to bring back an injured player,” Kraft told reporters, via Ian Rapoport of the Boston Herald.  “Even the year with [Tom] Brady and the Kansas City game, he possibly could have come back at the end of that year.  He actually wanted to, I remember the discussion.  I think all that does is just allow us to keep the game more exciting for those teams that make it to the playoffs, it’s a great opportunity to be able to do that.  I think it’s a very positive thing.”

A Rapoport points out, Brady’s desire to return in 2008 wasn’t previously known.  But once Brady was placed on IR, a return was impossible.  (And, as a practical matter, Brady likely wouldn’t have returned in 2008, given the complications he experienced during surgery.)  And while the Patriots could have used a roster spot on Brady like the Steelers did when cornerback Rod Woodson tore an ACL in Week One of the 1995 season and returned to play in the Super Bowl, most teams choose not to burn one of the 53 active roster spots on players who may miss a large chunk of the season.

With a change to the rules, they won’t have to.

Permalink 26 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, New England Patriots, Rumor Mill
26 Responses to “Kraft says Brady wanted to come back in 2008”
  1. BernardPollardIsAnAss says: Mar 26, 2012 2:59 PM

    Propriety of the rule change aside, I am glad he was not able to come back. He was a shell of himself the following season. There is no chance a QB comes back from an injury like that in the same season and is effective. Even a year later he wasn’t mentally ready. It took several weeks before he started to look like the Tom Brady Patriots fans know and love. That would have been a stupid decision.

  2. realitypolice says: Mar 26, 2012 3:04 PM

    What a great idea.

    Let’s put in a rule that would encourage players to rush back from serious injuries.

    Wouldn’t it be nice if the league would speak about increasing player safety out of BOTH sides of their mouths?

  3. bradyisthebest says: Mar 26, 2012 3:07 PM

    Its easy for Pats fans to say they are glad he waited considering that outside of the 09 season where he looked hesitant Brady is playing the best football of his career. However I think that had he have been allowed to return he could have shaken those in game jitters before the 09 season and could have had a stronger campaign.

  4. jmsincla says: Mar 26, 2012 3:09 PM

    I’d be fine with something similar to MLB’s DL.

  5. bullcharger says: Mar 26, 2012 3:12 PM

    BernardPollardIsAnAss says:Mar 26, 2012 2:59 PM

    Propriety of the rule change aside, I am glad he was not able to come back. He was a shell of himself the following season.

    ————–

    You mean like when he came back from two touchdowns down against the Bills and threw for 378 yards in his first game back?

    Brady had 4,398 yards, 28 touchdowns and a 96.2 rating in 2009. I’d say it was a Brady like season.

    I don’t know if he could have or should have come back at the end of 2008, but it would have been better than Matt Cassel in any case.

  6. noquickreactionshere says: Mar 26, 2012 3:17 PM

    Personally I think this is a stupid rule change but I’m not surprised that Kraft is behind it. Give the Pats credit, they know how to work the system to their advantage and that is exactly what this rule change would allow them to do. The final paragraph makes the point that should be discussed in this issue and explains why the Tom Brady knee issue is a bad example. The Pats could have brought Tom Brady back at the end of the season if they had not put him on IR. They could have chosen to keep him on the 53 man roster if they thought he could have and should have come back. If this rule is changed it will lead to teams abusing the rule to expand their roster beyond 53.

  7. bleedgreen says: Mar 26, 2012 3:20 PM

    I think it would have helped the next year actually. If you can get that game or 2 out of the way at the end of the season, you get the mental roadblock out of the way. Then you go into the offseason knowing you can play a game and not build it up in your mind until its this HUGE monumental thing on opening day the next season.

  8. 2mannings1cup says: Mar 26, 2012 3:21 PM

    Thanks for posting that picture again. I just threw up my turkey sandwhich.

  9. blacknole08 says: Mar 26, 2012 3:21 PM

    That would have been a dumb decision on Kraft’s part to allow Brady to play even if he could. Belicheck wouldn’t have allowed it either. Plus Matt Cassel had the hot hand at the end of the season.

  10. bozosforall says: Mar 26, 2012 3:23 PM

    Kraft just needs to STHU. Dude thinks that he has the answers for everything but absent him lucking into Brady (and getting caught cheating), his team is still titleless and no one is interested in listening into his pompous pronouncements.

  11. 2mannings1cup says: Mar 26, 2012 3:27 PM

    Kraft just needs to STHU. Dude thinks that he has the answers for everything but absent him lucking into Brady (and getting caught cheating), his team is still titleless and no one is interested in listening into his pompous pronouncements.

    _______________
    Certainly one of the most ignorant and mind-numbing comments i’ve read in a while. You should be ashamed of your inability to coherently comprehend the actual happenings around you.

  12. bozosforall says: Mar 26, 2012 3:40 PM

    noquickreactionshere says:
    Mar 26, 2012 3:17 PM
    Personally I think this is a stupid rule change but I’m not surprised that Kraft is behind it. Give the Pats credit, they know how to work the system to their advantage and that is exactly what this rule change would allow them to do. The final paragraph makes the point that should be discussed in this issue and explains why the Tom Brady knee issue is a bad example. The Pats could have brought Tom Brady back at the end of the season if they had not put him on IR. They could have chosen to keep him on the 53 man roster if they thought he could have and should have come back. If this rule is changed it will lead to teams abusing the rule to expand their roster beyond 53.

    __
    Tried to give you a “thumbs up” but it appears that PFT is manipulating the function somehow to your detriment. Just one more reason why the buttons are an absolute joke.

  13. bozosforall says: Mar 26, 2012 3:43 PM

    2mannings1cup says:
    Mar 26, 2012 3:27 PM
    Kraft just needs to STHU. Dude thinks that he has the answers for everything but absent him lucking into Brady (and getting caught cheating), his team is still titleless and no one is interested in listening into his pompous pronouncements.

    _______________
    Certainly one of the most ignorant and mind-numbing comments i’ve read in a while. You should be ashamed of your inability to coherently comprehend the actual happenings around you.

    __
    Speaking of ignorant, your screen name is about as ignorant as they come. Thanks for taking the bait though, idiot.

  14. marvsleezy says: Mar 26, 2012 3:48 PM

    Why would Kraft be an influential owner? Dont they all just have 1 vote?

  15. patsfan22 says: Mar 26, 2012 3:55 PM

    You mean like when he came back from two touchdowns down against the Bills and threw for 378 yards in his first game back?

    Brady had 4,398 yards, 28 touchdowns and a 96.2 rating in 2009. I’d say it was a Brady like season.

    I don’t know if he could have or should have come back at the end of 2008, but it would have been better than Matt Cassel in any case.
    —————————————————-

    His stats were fine but he definitely didn’t pass the eyeball test. He wasn’t nearly as clutch and we had a 10-6 record (tied with 2005 as our worst record in the last 10 years).

    I know that shows just how spoiled pats fans are but Brady (understandably) looked completely different that year.

  16. realitypolice says: Mar 26, 2012 4:30 PM

    Kraft is being disingenuous about this rule change being for players like Brady who want to return quickly from injury.

    Teams want this change so that they have another place to stash a player safely that they think they may be able to use later in the season, unlike the practice squad where players they are trying to stash can be signed away at any time.

    It has nothing to do with injuries.

  17. bozosforall says: Mar 26, 2012 4:54 PM

    patsfan22 says:
    Mar 26, 2012 3:55 PM
    You mean like when he came back from two touchdowns down against the Bills and threw for 378 yards in his first game back?

    Brady had 4,398 yards, 28 touchdowns and a 96.2 rating in 2009. I’d say it was a Brady like season.

    I don’t know if he could have or should have come back at the end of 2008, but it would have been better than Matt Cassel in any case.
    —————————————————-

    His stats were fine but he definitely didn’t pass the eyeball test. He wasn’t nearly as clutch and we had a 10-6 record (tied with 2005 as our worst record in the last 10 years).

    I know that shows just how spoiled pats fans are but Brady (understandably) looked completely different that year.

    __
    Clutch? Brady hasn’t won a title since he got injured. All he has been doing lately is trying to pile up stats to catch Peyton Manning. Meanwhile, Peyton’s little brother is 2-0 in Super Bowls against Tommy Boy.

  18. funkylovemonkey says: Mar 26, 2012 5:06 PM

    I think the 53 man roster rule has outlived it’s usefulness anyway. It was initially put in place in the pre-salary cap/pre-revenue sharing era, so that large market teams wouldn’t be able to stock up on players leaving small market teams at a competitive disadvantage. The fear was that a big team with a lot of revenue like the Giants or Dallas would be able to buy up a team of 70 players and pay good players to sit on the bench so they wouldn’t have to face them leaving small market teams left with the dregs of the NFL.

    That’s all changed since they implemented a salary cap and teams share revenue. Now, for instance, if the rule was removed in the modern NFL you could choose to have a 70 player team but you wouldn’t be able to pay as many high salaries as a 50 player team. It wouldn’t give the same competitive advantage because the salary cap places restrictions on hiring already, in fact having a 70 player team would probably put you at a competitive disadvantage. Sure you could have five Quarterbacks on your team, but none of them would be great QBs that could demand high salaries elsewhere.

    In essence, the salary cap would already punish you for over-hiring, because being deep with a bunch of mediocre players wouldn’t help you win more then having a bunch of great players without as much insurance.

  19. purplegreenandgold says: Mar 26, 2012 5:17 PM

    that picture should be investigated…

  20. BernardPollardIsAnAss says: Mar 26, 2012 6:35 PM

    @bullcharger

    Yes, I am referring to that game and many others like it that year. He was scared and he was unsteady. He was unsure of his footwork. I was at that opening night MNF game and aside from the final 2 minutes he did not play well. The offense was just plain painful to watch that night for 95% of the game. Also, I think you may be forgetting the two incredible TD catches and the forced fumble needed to win that game. Ben Watson had to make one of the greatest grabs every because Brady was off. And let’s not forget the game in Denver in 2009. I was at that game too. You know the one where he was throwing the ball at everyone’s (and most notably Welker’s) feet. With the game on the line, he hit Welker in the back of his foot. He was off all game because he was scared of the pressure and bodies around his feet. He was not mentally ready for several weeks. Some people rate players on stats. Others (like myself) rate players by watching them week in and week out. He did not pass the eyeball test for several weeks. And yes, I totally agree that Cassell sucked. I went to the game in Seattle that year and was fortunate to escape without humiliation in front of several Seahawks fans who are friends. That was an unfortunate time. You know it’s bad if Brandon Merriweather had to save the game. I did not say Brady sucked. I said he was a shell of himself for the first several weeks. Go back and watch the film. It is obvious.

  21. tedmurph says: Mar 26, 2012 7:25 PM

    bozosforall: Dude thinks that he has the answers for everything but no one is interested in listening into his pompous pronouncements.

    Fixed it for ya.

  22. belicheckyoself says: Mar 26, 2012 11:54 PM

    Cassel was ON at the end of 08. I still maintain that if 11-5 had been enough to get in that year they would have gone all the way. That whole team was on IR but they won out dominantly in December and were red hot.
    I think the current IR rule should stay in effect and they should increase the roster size a little. Teams used to use the old injury rules to their advantage, which is fine, but a player who’s that hurt should probably stay out.
    The roster sizes are clearly a little too small for the number of games, this years Pats are a pretty good example of that. Came close to winning the SB with mostly third string. They could have added a couple vets for the playoffs at the end of the year without leaving the kids out to dry entirely.
    Either way, see you real soon under the lights again, and Brady is still throwing at cleats sometimes. It’s something he does when he gets frustrated and always has.

  23. patsfiend says: Mar 27, 2012 1:49 AM

    bozosforall says:
    Mar 26, 2012 3:40 PM
    __
    Tried to give you a “thumbs up” but it appears that PFT is manipulating the function somehow to your detriment. Just one more reason why the buttons are an absolute joke.
    ——
    “I don’t like these thumbs up / thumbs down buttons they put on PFT and PBT. Everybody thumb-downs me just because they are pompous ignorant Pats fans, not because my posts are so moronic and I’m the biggest coward/turd on the whole board. Boooooo hoooooo!! Waaaaaaaaaaa.”

    Signed, Bozosforall

    (Frontrunning Yanks and Lakers fan who won’t state my football team)

  24. infectorman says: Mar 27, 2012 7:27 AM

    Clutch? Brady hasn’t won a title since he got injured. All he has been doing lately is trying to pile up stats to catch Peyton Manning. Meanwhile, Peyton’s little brother is 2-0 in Super Bowls against Tommy Boy.

    *************************

    I think you meant to say:

    Meanwhile, that the NE Patriots are 0-2 against the injury faking NY GNats in Superbowls…

    Its a 53 man roster Bozo-the-4thgrader.

    You gonna make it to 5th grade this year? You know all of us New Englanders are pulling 4 ya!

  25. bcgreg says: Mar 27, 2012 9:54 AM

    The Brady injury is a BAD example for this rule change. This is more for like a Dan Koppen situation. Koppen broke a bone in his leg in week 1 and was put on IR. He missed the whole season when he could have come back in the final few weeks of the season and playoffs. But, with the current rules, the Pats weren’t gonna take up a roster spot for a guy who’s gonna miss 10-12 weeks. Under the knew rule, they’d put Koppen on the inactive list, and they’d be able to sign another player until Koppen is ready to return. I like the rule for this scenario.

    However, as someone pointed out, the possibility of abusing this rule in order to have more players on your roster is significant.

  26. CKL says: Mar 27, 2012 3:03 PM

    The stashing thing is definitely a big reason they’ve had IR be what it is. I think teams still do stash but at least if they do, they have to commit to it for a full season.
    They may have to have other ancillary rules in place if they pass this. Like maybe how many snaps the guy has played, or starts or something to make sure it’s a legit “injury” reason and not stashing a young guy.

    I agree with the other Pats fans who said they’re glad TB didn’t try to come back. His recovery was already set back from the infection he got in that same knee. I can’t imagine his coming back the same year. And Cassel did do better after a rocky start. He wasn’t the reason they didn’t make the playoffs that year.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!