ScottieC
In the Starting Line-Up
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2008
- Messages
- 3,012
- Reaction score
- 4
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Interesting, hopefully they'll get the Schefter part up on the vault soon, I'd like to hear that. At this point, I'll take Schefter over Curran. Interesting about the west coast surgery aspect.
I'd like to know how Brady can be 20 weeks behind schedule when he was only injured 16 weeks ago.
One annoying thing I found about the limited time I listened to Curran on my commute was that he was instant that his story is more credible than others refuting it because no-one has any facts to refute his story. I would love to ask him what his facts are that support his story other than an unnamed source. The only things that could really refute his story would be the Drs who have been working on it, the MRI/other medical evidence, or Tom himself and since no one really can get that we are to just assume his story is true when really the only way to prove what he is saying is the same thing the Drs who have been working on it, the MRI/other medical evidence, or Tom himself.
Curran has made a strong case, but I think he dismissed Springer's and King's stories because they didn't address his story on a fact by fact basis. I don't think that is a strong enough argument on it's face to dismiss them. If the story isn't true and sources are saying so, they may not want to go into details.
The only source that Curran might have access to that I would then give credibility to is Tom's father and that is a possibility.
He was clearly being cautious with Peter King who works for the same network as Curran. His case was not just that King didn't refute anything in his article but that King's statement about Brady being ahead of schedule was illogical. The simple fact that there was the infection that was only recently cleared makes being ahead of schedule in recovery from an early October surgery impossible.
OK Tom's immediate family as well too than but just because Curran is supposedly close to Tom and/or Tom's family doesn't mean it was the source. And my point is that Curran is not giving any more or less proof than he asked of people trying to refute his story. Where is the medical evidence that this is the case? which is what he basicaly asked of those refuting his story.
I may have been listening at a different point, but Curran's case I heard was more than that.
He was clearly being cautious with Peter King who works for the same network as Curran. His case was not just that King didn't refute anything in his article but that King's statement about Brady being ahead of schedule was illogical. The simple fact that there was the infection that was only recently cleared makes being ahead of schedule in recovery from an early October surgery impossible.
He was much more direct on the Springer story which the Globe said refuted his claims but the only details they referenced were items the Globe had never reported before and both confirmed things in his report - range of motion issues and a possible upcoming surgery.
He said despite what others have attributed to him, he never wrote Brady would not play in 2009, only that he is behind in rehab and unlikely to be 100% at the start of the 2009 season.
Schefter's take on the matter to that he was told it was incorrect but he didn't seem to put much stock in the denial he got. He doesn't really have a clue either way. He pointed out for sake of comparison that the Colts ridiculed him when he called them to comment on a report he had that Peyton Manning had a 2nd knee surgery, stressing the strength of the denial. As we all know, Manning has since confirmed he did have a second knee surgery.