Curran kind of rephrases his earlier statements on Brady

[Rob0729]

I agree, and this is part of a larger point. I think sometimes we, as fans, panic and read into reports information that isn't explicitly there - and I say this while genuinely including myself in this group of periodic hyperventilaters.

My understanding of Curran's reporting is that there was/is "laxity" in Brady's injured knee. THERE IS. This is not in dispute. Further, the point I got from his stories was/IS that, if the laxity forces the issue of further treatment, said further treatment would jeopardize Brady's 2009 season. It was never said it WOULD, just that, if treatment was deemed necessary, the procedures would risk a longer and fuller delay.

The fact that Brady and the team and the medical staff have clearly decided that the laxity is NOT something that merits Tom undergoing more procedures - that he can play with that looseness - is beside the actual point of the article. This is not really that subtle a point, but I think any ambiguity is compounded by panic-driven messenger-shooting.

I'm not saying that guys like Curran or Tomase or anyone else are perfect, infallible, and that they don't deserve to be called on the carpet for sloppy reporting or for not sourcing stories with sufficient vigor. What I AM saying is that sometimes it gets pretty ironic when fans, again including myself, go off the deep end due to their own insufficient "work" in reading and interpreting the reporting they're complaining about.

Well, there is dispute about the laxity. Curran said it was in both the MCL and the ACL. Other reports say only the MCL. That is a big distinction since the MCL will repair itself while the ACL cannot. It looks that Curran got that part of the story wrong.

 

[AzPatsFan]

I agree, and this is part of a larger point. I think sometimes we, as fans, panic and read into reports information that isn't explicitly there - and I say this while genuinely including myself in this group of periodic hyperventilaters.

My understanding of Curran's reporting is that there was/is "laxity" in Brady's injured knee. THERE IS. This is not in dispute. Further, the point I got from his stories was/IS that, if the laxity forces the issue of further treatment, said further treatment would jeopardize Brady's 2009 season. It was never said it WOULD, just that, if treatment was deemed necessary, the procedures would risk a longer and fuller delay.

The fact that Brady and the team and the medical staff have clearly decided that the laxity is NOT something that merits Tom undergoing more procedures - that he can play with that looseness - is beside the actual point of the article. This is not really that subtle a point, but I think any ambiguity is compounded by panic-driven messenger-shooting.

I'm not saying that guys like Curran or Tomase or anyone else are perfect, infallible, and that they don't deserve to be called on the carpet for sloppy reporting or for not sourcing stories with sufficient vigor. What I AM saying is that sometimes it gets pretty ironic when fans, again including myself, go off the deep end due to their own insufficient "work" in reading and interpreting the reporting they're complaining about.

patsox23,

Congratulations. There is something to be said for the proverb about "... maintain your head [sic rational thinking] when others are losing their heads..."

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

I agree, and this is part of a larger point. I think sometimes we, as fans, panic and read into reports information that isn't explicitly there - and I say this while genuinely including myself in this group of periodic hyperventilaters.

My understanding of Curran's reporting is that there was/is "laxity" in Brady's injured knee. THERE IS. This is not in dispute. Further, the point I got from his stories was/IS that, if the laxity forces the issue of further treatment, said further treatment would jeopardize Brady's 2009 season. It was never said it WOULD, just that, if treatment was deemed necessary, the procedures would risk a longer and fuller delay.

The fact that Brady and the team and the medical staff have clearly decided that the laxity is NOT something that merits Tom undergoing more procedures - that he can play with that looseness - is beside the actual point of the article. This is not really that subtle a point, but I think any ambiguity is compounded by panic-driven messenger-shooting.

He should have mentioned, like Casserly did, that the laxity was normal for this time in rehab. That statement makes a HUGE difference in perception.

 

[Leave No Doubt]

Maybe it would be worthwhile rereading the actual articles that someone reposted earlier before jumping all over the people who reacted to them. Just a thought



Brady's eagerness might be cause of setback - NFL- nbcsports.msnbc.com

Dan Patrick.com


Report: New England Patriots' Tom Brady behind in recovery from surgery - ESPN

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/28399629/

 

[Patjew]

Nope, I'm not. I just think a lot of people here get their haunches up and misread, and then mischaracterize, what was ACTUALLY reported.

Thanks. Like I said, I was just curious.