What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Brady could start next year on PUP (1 Viewer)

JohnnyU

Footballguy
Headlines

Curran: Brady could start next season on PUP

NBCSports.com's Tom Curran believes Tom Brady could start next season on the PUP list.

We're so far from training camp, that this must be considered highly informed speculation. But Brady's slow recovery, in Curran's eyes, makes it far more likely for the Patriots to franchise Cassel and keep both quarterbacks for 2009 rather than trade Cassel. Jan. 7 - 11:04 am et

Source: NBCSports.com

 
Curran's the one who reported that Brady's way behind schedule and might need to redo the surgery. His report was disputed by everyone. Speculating on the PUP 7 months out is ridiculous imo. Especially when Brady's walking around without a limp.

 
Curran's the one who reported that Brady's way behind schedule and might need to redo the surgery. His report was disputed by everyone. Speculating on the PUP 7 months out is ridiculous imo. Especially when Brady's walking around without a limp.
Not sure I agree with the middle part. His report was questioned by many but few have any foundation to credit or discredit his report. Basically, what I got out of it was the fact that no one else could support his claim. Many people suggested that it did not appear to be accurate, but no one had any evidence that said it was not true. Neither NE nor Brady said the story was true or false and both had no comment either way. Not sure how to categorize that.
 
Curran's the one who reported that Brady's way behind schedule and might need to redo the surgery. His report was disputed by everyone. Speculating on the PUP 7 months out is ridiculous imo. Especially when Brady's walking around without a limp.
Not sure I agree with the middle part. His report was questioned by many but few have any foundation to credit or discredit his report. Basically, what I got out of it was the fact that no one else could support his claim. Many people suggested that it did not appear to be accurate, but no one had any evidence that said it was not true. Neither NE nor Brady said the story was true or false and both had no comment either way. Not sure how to categorize that.
He didn't have any evidence either except for unnamed sources. Was there a single person who agreed with his report?
 
Curran's the one who reported that Brady's way behind schedule and might need to redo the surgery. His report was disputed by everyone. Speculating on the PUP 7 months out is ridiculous imo. Especially when Brady's walking around without a limp.
Not sure I agree with the middle part. His report was questioned by many but few have any foundation to credit or discredit his report. Basically, what I got out of it was the fact that no one else could support his claim. Many people suggested that it did not appear to be accurate, but no one had any evidence that said it was not true. Neither NE nor Brady said the story was true or false and both had no comment either way. Not sure how to categorize that.
He didn't have any evidence either except for unnamed sources. Was there a single person who agreed with his report?
'Unnamed sources' will be the only source that you hear about from the Pats until the day he actually goes on the PUP. He might be getting his info from the team doctor or Giselle herself, but they will all be unnamed sources. Not exactly an open book, the Pats.
 
Curran's the one who reported that Brady's way behind schedule and might need to redo the surgery. His report was disputed by everyone. Speculating on the PUP 7 months out is ridiculous imo. Especially when Brady's walking around without a limp.
Not sure I agree with the middle part. His report was questioned by many but few have any foundation to credit or discredit his report. Basically, what I got out of it was the fact that no one else could support his claim. Many people suggested that it did not appear to be accurate, but no one had any evidence that said it was not true. Neither NE nor Brady said the story was true or false and both had no comment either way. Not sure how to categorize that.
He didn't have any evidence either except for unnamed sources. Was there a single person who agreed with his report?
Nobody could confirm his report, nobody really denied it either. Curran has a great repuation around here, and has had an excellent professional relationship with Brady. Shefter would only go as far to say "I can't confirm that."And please don't link Peter King, everyone knows that he is completely out of the NE loop since his Spygate articles.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Curran's the one who reported that Brady's way behind schedule and might need to redo the surgery. His report was disputed by everyone. Speculating on the PUP 7 months out is ridiculous imo. Especially when Brady's walking around without a limp.
Not sure I agree with the middle part. His report was questioned by many but few have any foundation to credit or discredit his report. Basically, what I got out of it was the fact that no one else could support his claim. Many people suggested that it did not appear to be accurate, but no one had any evidence that said it was not true. Neither NE nor Brady said the story was true or false and both had no comment either way. Not sure how to categorize that.
He didn't have any evidence either except for unnamed sources. Was there a single person who agreed with his report?
If I found out something about Brady and came forward and cited unnamed sources (which is not really that far-fetched BTW), does that automatically mean I am making it up, that's it untrue, or that it's not a possibility?Curran is not one to make stuff up or report on things on a regular basis with mystery sources. As already mentioned, you can't really cite sources for New England news because if you did you'd never have a job again in the Boston media. The Pats would black list you like no tomorrow.
 
Curran's the one who reported that Brady's way behind schedule and might need to redo the surgery. His report was disputed by everyone. Speculating on the PUP 7 months out is ridiculous imo. Especially when Brady's walking around without a limp.
Not sure I agree with the middle part. His report was questioned by many but few have any foundation to credit or discredit his report. Basically, what I got out of it was the fact that no one else could support his claim. Many people suggested that it did not appear to be accurate, but no one had any evidence that said it was not true. Neither NE nor Brady said the story was true or false and both had no comment either way. Not sure how to categorize that.
He didn't have any evidence either except for unnamed sources. Was there a single person who agreed with his report?
If I found out something about Brady and came forward and cited unnamed sources (which is not really that far-fetched BTW), does that automatically mean I am making it up, that's it untrue, or that it's not a possibility?Curran is not one to make stuff up or report on things on a regular basis with mystery sources. As already mentioned, you can't really cite sources for New England news because if you did you'd never have a job again in the Boston media. The Pats would black list you like no tomorrow.
Curran's report seemed very much like a 1 +1 = 3 campaign. Yes Brady had an infection, yes that does put him behind for a knee surgery that had no complications, no that doesnt necessarily put him behind for a surgery where an infection occurred or mean his 2009 season is in jeopardy. Unless he talked directly with Brady's surgical team he's trying to put two and two together. Also seeing Brady walking around the soup kitchen without a limp makes me skeptical.
 
Curran's the one who reported that Brady's way behind schedule and might need to redo the surgery. His report was disputed by everyone. Speculating on the PUP 7 months out is ridiculous imo. Especially when Brady's walking around without a limp.
Not sure I agree with the middle part. His report was questioned by many but few have any foundation to credit or discredit his report. Basically, what I got out of it was the fact that no one else could support his claim. Many people suggested that it did not appear to be accurate, but no one had any evidence that said it was not true. Neither NE nor Brady said the story was true or false and both had no comment either way. Not sure how to categorize that.
He didn't have any evidence either except for unnamed sources. Was there a single person who agreed with his report?
If I found out something about Brady and came forward and cited unnamed sources (which is not really that far-fetched BTW), does that automatically mean I am making it up, that's it untrue, or that it's not a possibility?Curran is not one to make stuff up or report on things on a regular basis with mystery sources. As already mentioned, you can't really cite sources for New England news because if you did you'd never have a job again in the Boston media. The Pats would black list you like no tomorrow.
Curran's report seemed very much like a 1 +1 = 3 campaign. Yes Brady had an infection, yes that does put him behind for a knee surgery that had no complications, no that doesnt necessarily put him behind for a surgery where an infection occurred or mean his 2009 season is in jeopardy. Unless he talked directly with Brady's surgical team he's trying to put two and two together. Also seeing Brady walking around the soup kitchen without a limp makes me skeptical.
From what I remember, Curran mentioned that Brady "could" require surgery and that given a set of circumstances he "could" miss another season. The insider trading of information element suggested that he was approaching some of the milestones that might make him need the surgeries that would make him miss most of the 2009 season. So yes, in that regard he put 2 and 2 together.You being skeptical is your prerogative. Just like others have the opportunity to be concerned or not on a case by case, indivudaul basis. Anyone can value or ignore his reporting as little or as much as they want.
 
Curran's the one who reported that Brady's way behind schedule and might need to redo the surgery. His report was disputed by everyone. Speculating on the PUP 7 months out is ridiculous imo. Especially when Brady's walking around without a limp.
Not sure I agree with the middle part. His report was questioned by many but few have any foundation to credit or discredit his report. Basically, what I got out of it was the fact that no one else could support his claim. Many people suggested that it did not appear to be accurate, but no one had any evidence that said it was not true. Neither NE nor Brady said the story was true or false and both had no comment either way. Not sure how to categorize that.
He didn't have any evidence either except for unnamed sources. Was there a single person who agreed with his report?
If I found out something about Brady and came forward and cited unnamed sources (which is not really that far-fetched BTW), does that automatically mean I am making it up, that's it untrue, or that it's not a possibility?Curran is not one to make stuff up or report on things on a regular basis with mystery sources. As already mentioned, you can't really cite sources for New England news because if you did you'd never have a job again in the Boston media. The Pats would black list you like no tomorrow.
Curran's report seemed very much like a 1 +1 = 3 campaign. Yes Brady had an infection, yes that does put him behind for a knee surgery that had no complications, no that doesnt necessarily put him behind for a surgery where an infection occurred or mean his 2009 season is in jeopardy. Unless he talked directly with Brady's surgical team he's trying to put two and two together. Also seeing Brady walking around the soup kitchen without a limp makes me skeptical.
Curran's intial report included pretty specific medical information about the status of Brady's knee.I also find it funny that you're calling Curran out for "trying to put 2 and 2 together" and then in the next sentence saying that since Brady walking around without a limp, he'll be fine for playing professional football in 2009.
 
Curran's the one who reported that Brady's way behind schedule and might need to redo the surgery. His report was disputed by everyone. Speculating on the PUP 7 months out is ridiculous imo. Especially when Brady's walking around without a limp.
Not sure I agree with the middle part. His report was questioned by many but few have any foundation to credit or discredit his report. Basically, what I got out of it was the fact that no one else could support his claim. Many people suggested that it did not appear to be accurate, but no one had any evidence that said it was not true. Neither NE nor Brady said the story was true or false and both had no comment either way. Not sure how to categorize that.
He didn't have any evidence either except for unnamed sources. Was there a single person who agreed with his report?
If I found out something about Brady and came forward and cited unnamed sources (which is not really that far-fetched BTW), does that automatically mean I am making it up, that's it untrue, or that it's not a possibility?Curran is not one to make stuff up or report on things on a regular basis with mystery sources. As already mentioned, you can't really cite sources for New England news because if you did you'd never have a job again in the Boston media. The Pats would black list you like no tomorrow.
Curran's report seemed very much like a 1 +1 = 3 campaign. Yes Brady had an infection, yes that does put him behind for a knee surgery that had no complications, no that doesnt necessarily put him behind for a surgery where an infection occurred or mean his 2009 season is in jeopardy. Unless he talked directly with Brady's surgical team he's trying to put two and two together. Also seeing Brady walking around the soup kitchen without a limp makes me skeptical.
From what I remember, Curran mentioned that Brady "could" require surgery and that given a set of circumstances he "could" miss another season. The insider trading of information element suggested that he was approaching some of the milestones that might make him need the surgeries that would make him miss most of the 2009 season. So yes, in that regard he put 2 and 2 together.You being skeptical is your prerogative. Just like others have the opportunity to be concerned or not on a case by case, indivudaul basis. Anyone can value or ignore his reporting as little or as much as they want.
Of course he could. He could require brain surgery if he falls off a building. That was my main issue with his report. People were taking it as some groundbreaking new piece when it was in fact just conjecture and nothing new at all.
 
Curran's the one who reported that Brady's way behind schedule and might need to redo the surgery. His report was disputed by everyone. Speculating on the PUP 7 months out is ridiculous imo. Especially when Brady's walking around without a limp.
Not sure I agree with the middle part. His report was questioned by many but few have any foundation to credit or discredit his report. Basically, what I got out of it was the fact that no one else could support his claim. Many people suggested that it did not appear to be accurate, but no one had any evidence that said it was not true. Neither NE nor Brady said the story was true or false and both had no comment either way. Not sure how to categorize that.
He didn't have any evidence either except for unnamed sources. Was there a single person who agreed with his report?
If I found out something about Brady and came forward and cited unnamed sources (which is not really that far-fetched BTW), does that automatically mean I am making it up, that's it untrue, or that it's not a possibility?Curran is not one to make stuff up or report on things on a regular basis with mystery sources. As already mentioned, you can't really cite sources for New England news because if you did you'd never have a job again in the Boston media. The Pats would black list you like no tomorrow.
Curran's report seemed very much like a 1 +1 = 3 campaign. Yes Brady had an infection, yes that does put him behind for a knee surgery that had no complications, no that doesnt necessarily put him behind for a surgery where an infection occurred or mean his 2009 season is in jeopardy. Unless he talked directly with Brady's surgical team he's trying to put two and two together. Also seeing Brady walking around the soup kitchen without a limp makes me skeptical.
From what I remember, Curran mentioned that Brady "could" require surgery and that given a set of circumstances he "could" miss another season. The insider trading of information element suggested that he was approaching some of the milestones that might make him need the surgeries that would make him miss most of the 2009 season. So yes, in that regard he put 2 and 2 together.You being skeptical is your prerogative. Just like others have the opportunity to be concerned or not on a case by case, indivudaul basis. Anyone can value or ignore his reporting as little or as much as they want.
Of course he could. He could require brain surgery if he falls off a building. That was my main issue with his report. People were taking it as some groundbreaking new piece when it was in fact just conjecture and nothing new at all.
:thumbup: The title in the first topic was/is terribly misleading.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top