Welcome to PatsFans.com

Does PUP stand for Physically Under Protection anymore in preseason games?

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by PATRIOTSFANINPA, Aug 16, 2007.

  1. PATRIOTSFANINPA

    PATRIOTSFANINPA Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    15,720
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +12 / 0 / -0

    #12 Jersey

    I think teams are using the PUP tag more often than ever to just keep thier most important players off the field instead of risking injury during the mostly meaningless preseason games for the veterans that everyone knows are locks for the team.

    Is it more for an actual injury anymore or really for protection to avoid a potential 'future' injury in the next preseason game or two.

    Why not just say that the player is not injured but kept off of the field because of risk to injury,or is that not an acceptable excuse in the league?

    I do not really understand why the PUP is tagged on a player that just about everyone knows can play as normal in a preseason game,every media source says Seymour and other stars on the team are fine but withheld because of risk of injury,why the PUP tag?.
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2007
  2. Remix 6

    Remix 6 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    Messages:
    7,780
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    Re: Does PUP stand for Physically Under Protection?

    Physically Unable to Perform
  3. PATRIOTSFANINPA

    PATRIOTSFANINPA Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    15,720
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +12 / 0 / -0

    #12 Jersey

    Re: Does PUP stand for Physically Under Protection?

    No kidding - The title was sarcastic a bit you might say,I'm not stupid
  4. letekro

    letekro Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,162
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +8 / 2 / -3

    Thread of the year
  5. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    This thread is a winner...yippeee for football knowledge...LOL
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2007
  6. patsox23

    patsox23 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7,387
    Likes Received:
    9
    Ratings:
    +9 / 1 / -0

    I'll bypass the sarcasm and answer what he actually meant - yes, teams do this a lot. I think the reason the NFL will never overtly acknowledge that is that it's already controversial for the owners to charge full-price for pre-season games (while paying the players "scale" and charging normal ticket rates).
  7. patchick

    patchick Moderatrix Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    11,512
    Likes Received:
    270
    Ratings:
    +603 / 6 / -0

    OK everybody, I think we have a regional linguistic barrier here.

    PATRIOTSFANINPA, I'm guessing you're from one of the pockets of the country where anymore means "nowadays." To us New Englanders, though, it only means "any longer." By that meaning, your thread title sounds pretty stupid, thus the scathing response.
  8. SoonerPatriot

    SoonerPatriot Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2004
    Messages:
    3,318
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Nah, people 'round these parts' (as we say in the southwest) like to be scathing at every opportunity. It makes them feel better about themselves...or something.
  9. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    I guess "every media source" really doesn't count...does it??? It's all pretty dumb. OR did u just NOT know Seymour had offseason knee surgery?? It's the team and the physicians who are deciding about rehab and when they are ready..NOT the media sources or the fans...Geesh!!! That is what PUP is about. Seems like you have information or claim to about players being "ready" when they are OBVIOUSLY not.
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2007
  10. FirstAndGoal

    FirstAndGoal Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2006
    Messages:
    1,405
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +25 / 1 / -0

    And here I thought it was up to the coaches whether to play players or not. I never realized that coaches put players on PUP to avoid the NFL making the coaches put them in the game.:rolleyes:
  11. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    They wouldn't need PUP just to keep them out of games, they could just not play them. I think you're confusing cause and effect. Coaches generally want their players to practice, and they also have to balance it with letting players rest and heal. With veterans the balance might be a little bit more towards rest, but ideally you want both of those things. If coaches are keeping players out of practice, it's either because they're not medically cleared, or because they feel the player could use the rest more. If that's the case at the begining of training camp, why not put them on PUP and leave the window open to keeping them on PUP at the begining of the season, thus saving a roster spot? PUP players that don't come back by week 1 become the replacements-for-injuries-list. No NFL ticketing conspiracy, it's just another tool for roster management.
  12. PATRIOT64

    PATRIOT64 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    3,775
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    In response to the question in particular about Seymour, it has been noted around media sources that Seymour would be able to play if this were week 1 thus he would be off of PUP
  13. RayClay

    RayClay On the Roster

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    18,041
    Likes Received:
    187
    Ratings:
    +439 / 5 / -6

    #75 Jersey

    Seymour played with 2-4 major injuries last year. why would you want him to play injured in exhibition games?

    They don't count.
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2007

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>