strngplyr
In the Starting Line-Up
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2010
- Messages
- 4,817
- Reaction score
- 1,627
The Patriots were waiting to see if they could avoid surgery by waiting a little while and allowing his foot to heal without it first.
He had surgery in early March, so I don't really see what it hurt by waiting 3-4 more weeks than when he'd have gotten it originally, which obviously wouldn't have been any sooner than early February since we were in the AFCCG.
I don't understand how anyone would consider waiting an additional 3-4 weeks as "botching things?" Why force one of your players to go under the knife if the problem may heal on its own? There's no way to predict how these situations are going to end up, especially when it was addressed only 5 weeks or so after the season ended.
One could have argued that it was "botched," had the team waited until May/June to have him go under the knife, but who could have predicted that his healing time would be a little longer than anticipated in the early off-season?
This is apparently a difficult concept to grasp.