Did Curran just back away from his Brady story?

[DGameguy]

I just caught New England Sports Tonight, and he seems to be edging away from the doom and gloom prognostications of a month or two ago. At the beginning of his discussion with Felger on possible landing places for Cassel, Curran said Brady "would probably be ready to start Game 1." Huh?

While I understand that the original story did not expressly state that Tom Brady would miss the 2009 season, it did make it seem to be in doubt and that the team would not know for some time if Brady was ready to go.

Original story here: Curran: Brady behind schedule in recovery from surgery - NFL- nbcsports.msnbc.com

 

[Kontradiction]

That's because he, like every other sports journalist around the United States, does not know for sure whether or not Brady will be truly ready to start the 2009 season. He probably wrong that "throw it at the wall and see if it sticks" story just so he could say he was right if Brady truly did have a setback.

 

[jmt57]

Now he'll be able to say, "as I reported in February" regardless of outcome.

 

[BelichickFan]

He's been slowly backing off. Originally he presented a re-done ACL surgery as a legit possibility. Then a week or two ago he started saying that he fully expected Brady to play next season but he was behind and maybe would be PUPed. Now this, which I didn't see but I imagine DGameguy got the quote right. Curran was wrong, either the info he got or his conclusions about it.

Now let's hope Brady doesn't have another real setback to make Curran's original story seem correct.

 

[RayClay]

Before the internet you used to be able to wrap fish in it the next day when they just needed something interesting to fill space.

 

[DGameguy]

Now he'll be able to say, "as I reported in February" regardless of outcome.

Right. This is what I was thinking when he said it. BF I'm pretty sure I got the quote right. If anyone else saw it, it was said very quickly at the beginning of the interview. In fairness, he did say that it was still a "good" possibility the Pats would keep Cassel as insurance in case Brady was hurt during the season, but it was more in the context of what the Patriots would do if they couldn't get proper value.

 

[Fencer]

Curran earned some respect when he was a reporter around here. Perhaps somebody has set him straight.

Anyhow, I go for the simple theory that he got more information, or thinks he did, and hence has modified his views.

 

[Rob0729]

In related new, that Barstool Sports rip off site (that will go nameless) has reiterated that they stand by their story that Brady's career is probably over or at the very least definitely won't resume until 2010 although the same "reporter' last week said that a deal that would send Brady to San Fran is basically a done deal. He eve argues in his latest article that even if Brady does return in 2010, he will probably be a scrub after missing two years. So some morons in the media (and I call any writer from that site "in the media" in the most liberal definition of the meaning) has the courage to stand by the Brady is done story.

Of course it is realistic to believe that if Brady is definitely done for 2010 and most likely his career that the 49ers would trade for him other than a conditional 2011 pick. Since there could be no football in 2011 or at least no draft, I am sure the Pats would go for that.

Sorry, I digress. At least I didn't start a new thread or give a link to that site for them to get hits for a bogus story.

 

[Rob0729]

As for Curran, I feel he has handled the whole story and its aftermath poorly. He really came off like an arse on this one. At least if he is backing down from his story, there isn't a legitimate news source that states that he is in serious danger of missing any time in 2009.

 

[Rob0729]

Curran earned some respect when he was a reporter around here. Perhaps somebody has set him straight.

Anyhow, I go for the simple theory that he got more information, or thinks he did, and hence has modified his views.

Well, it doesn't really excuse his "I am right and everyone else is wrong and don't have the information I have" stance he had right after this story happened. My guess he has had to relent from his story after Michael Smith's story to the contrary that addresses many of the issues that Curran addressed and claimed earlier reports (like Peter King, Michael Silver, etc.) didn't address directly. Michael Holley vouched for Smith's source as being very well placed and I am guessing that others in the media including Curran know who the source is now and most likely accept it as a valid source.

 

[BradyManny]

In related new, that Barstool Sports rip off site (that will go nameless) has reiterated that they stand by their story that Brady's career is probably over or at the very least definitely won't resume until 2010 although the same "reporter' last week said that a deal that would send Brady to San Fran is basically a done deal. He eve argues in his latest article that even if Brady does return in 2010, he will probably be a scrub after missing two years. So some morons in the media (and I call any writer from that site "in the media" in the most liberal definition of the meaning) has the courage to stand by the Brady is done story.

That site truly is a joke. I went to it to entertain myself to see what they had to say. Basically, they said since Bobby Orr couldn't come back in the 1960s w a knee injury that Brady couldn't either. Nice, current & relevant. If Brady ever gets a cold, they'll tell us his career's over citing William Henry Harrison's demise.