ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
Re: Injury Report Shenanigans raise eyebrows due to Patriot Compliance
Quote:
Originally Posted by supafly
These injury reports you show are for the game vs. SD. The so called controversy is stemming because he was not listed on the injury report the week before vs. SF, even though he had an apparent broken shoulder.
I don't agree with any of the controversy, but I believe that's what they're complaining about. According to Florio, "they" seem to be another NFL team.
But if he played in that game, and he was always going to play in that game, what does it matter if he had a broken shoulder, cracked pelvis or elephantitis of the testicles?
__________________
Drink like a beast.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
FEATURED ADVERTISEMENT
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
Re: Injury Report Shenanigans raise eyebrows due to Patriot Compliance
If I am not mistaken - somebody correct me if I am wrong - the injury report was updated a few years ago to strictly correlate with the percentage chances of someone playing in the game, and nothing else, since the terms were ambiguous. Specifically, probable equated to 75% or more chance of playing, questionable meant 50%, doubtful meant 25% and out meant zero %. At that point it no longer had anything to do with a player being bruised, slowed down, hurt, or 'injured.'
In other words, if a team was sure somebody would play (e.g., Maroney), then there was no reason to list him on an injury report that was instituted a half century ago due to gambling.
If anybody has a problem with the Pats' injury report, it should be for Brady's weekly listing as probable; there was nothing improper with Maroney's non-listing as per the NFL rules.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Re: Injury Report Shenanigans raise eyebrows due to Patriot Compliance
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patjew
But if he played in that game, and he was always going to play in that game, what does it matter if he had a broken shoulder, cracked pelvis or elephantitis of the testicles?
I agree totally PJ. If anything I think maybe they'll 'clearify' the rule at the upcoming meetings, especially because other teams and players obviously don't fully 'get it' a la Roethlisburger in the SB week, and Favre down the stretch last yr.
It amazes me how various people keep trying to drum something up--to no avail.
God bless anyone who could ever play with elephantitis
Re: Injury Report Shenanigans raise eyebrows due to Patriot Compliance
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmt57
If I am not mistaken - somebody correct me if I am wrong - the injury report was updated a few years ago to strictly correlate with the percentage chances of someone playing in the game, and nothing else, since the terms were ambiguous. Specifically, probable equated to 75% or more chance of playing, questionable meant 50%, doubtful meant 25% and out meant zero %. At that point it no longer had anything to do with a player being bruised, slowed down, hurt, or 'injured.'
In other words, if a team was sure somebody would play (e.g., Maroney), then there was no reason to list him on an injury report that was instituted a half century ago due to gambling.
If anybody has a problem with the Pats' injury report, it should be for Brady's weekly listing as probable; there was nothing improper with Maroney's non-listing as per the NFL rules.
Yeah, IMO, there shouldn't be any kind of problem at all. The facts are that he was injured in wk.2, then listed on the report for wk.3, (for which he didn't play--most likely because of the upcoming bye wk)
If they felt he may have been able to come back from the bye and play vs. SF, then so be it--they must have felt there wasn't a need to list him on the injury report because he'd try and play. Or more importantly, they knew he'd give it another chance to go.
Re: Injury Report Shenanigans raise eyebrows due to Patriot Compliance
Quote:
Originally Posted by supafly
I agree totally PJ. If anything I think maybe they'll 'clearify' the rule at the upcoming meetings, especially because other teams and players obviously don't fully 'get it' a la Roethlisburger in the SB week, and Favre down the stretch last yr.
It amazes me how various people keep trying to drum something up--to no avail.
God bless anyone who could ever play with elephantitis
My father made me play with elephantitis once... Once.
__________________
Drink like a beast.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Re: Injury Report Shenanigans raise eyebrows due to Patriot Compliance
i like how rothtithsburger ( i cant spell that ) had broken ribs or w/e for the whole playoffs but we get it for maroney having a broken shoulder. even tho maroney eventually got ired.
btw elephantiasis MY GOD, that would be awful to see