What, me worry?
Thanks, but what I was referring to was early today we had indications from the NFL itself saying the plan was to play Monday even after it was acknowledged that there was a positive on the Pats, but then it was changed. Thus it wasn't a 'non-starter', the league itself was saying the game was on. Curran's article takes us through that time line.Ummmmm.....
With todays covid positive result, a one day testing/clearance timetable was a non-starter, especially after the blowback by Pats players on the record and off
Yet he didn't play the "I'm hearing more off the record" card, he's laying out his evidence, which I'm not finding to rise to the level of 'we called our shots'.I think you might be underestimating what else Curran most certainly has heard off the record. I see it the other way around and truly believe that they would have forfeited the game if the League decided to put them into a position they wouldn't feel comfortable with.
For instance, the article says:
Hey, I'm glad there's unity between team and management to play things on the safe side, and be even safer than NFL protocols suggest.Did the Patriots tell the NFL they weren’t playing in the wake of another positive COVID test emerging Sunday morning? Or did the league read the tea leaves and understand that, if they tried to push forward with the game, the hosts might have the lights off?
We’re still trying to determine that. But either way, the Patriots – through words and deeds this week – showed they’re the ones in charge of what happens at 1 Patriot Place.
We have a rogue state in Foxboro? Maybe. If we do, it’s for all the right reasons.
All I'm saying is Curran didn't prove his case that the team called the shots. Maybe they did, maybe they did not.
Even the beginning of the article said the Patriots had 'a voice' i.e. input on the decision. That's not hard to believe. What is hard for me to believe is the Pats 'called the shots' i.e. they refused to play. If so we'd be hearing about serious penalties from NJFL.