i_am_the_swammi Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Where is it being reported he's having surgery? Ahmad Bradshaw, RB NYGNews: Giants RB Ahmad Bradshaw suffered a cracked bone in his foot during Week 8 against Miami and is out indefinitely, according to The Star-Ledger. Bradshaw, who did not practice Wednesday because of the injury, is reportedly considering having surgery to repair the foot. New York coach Tom Coughlin said Bradshaw will see a foot specialist later this week for a second opinion. Bradshaw has had issues with his feet before and had screws inserted into his feet to stabilize the bones during a previous surgery in March of last year. He was able to play through the foot issue during the 2009 season and only missed one game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delfamdelfam Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 considering surgery and having surgery are kinda different. Nowhere is it stated that he's having surgery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNOWBOUND33 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 I staying away from this mess right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelsosi Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 It feels like a lifetime ago, but it was only 2 years ago (2009) that Jacobs was being taken as a top 5 RB in drafts. I'm very interested to see what he can do with a full load. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MistaWrite Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 It feels like a lifetime ago, but it was only 2 years ago (2009) that Jacobs was being taken as a top 5 RB in drafts. I'm very interested to see what he can do with a full load. All these conflicting reports make ME want to drop a full load. In my pants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajh2 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 (edited) Per AP via Yahoo: New York Giants running back Ahmad Bradshaw(notes) has a broken bone in his foot and might not play in Sunday’s game against the New England Patriots. A person familiar with the injury said Bradshaw broke the bone in last Sunday’s win over Miami. The person spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity Thursday because the team had not disclosed the injury. Bradshaw has had surgery on both feet and ankles. Without Bradshaw, Brandon Jacobs(notes) will have to carry the load. The Giants (5-2) said Sunday that Bradshaw, seen on the bench without his right shoe, missed time in the second half because a screw from a previous surgery was causing pain in his foot. The injury first was reported by the Star-Ledger of Newark. Bradshaw has carried 111 times for 440 yards and five touchdowns in a season the Giants running game has struggled. The five-year veteran became the first Giants back this season to rush for 100 yards when he gained 104 yards and ran for three touchdowns in New York’s win over Buffalo on Oct. 16. He was limited to 50 yards on 13 carries by the Dolphins. Jacobs has had a miserable season, carrying only 42 times for 126 yards. He missed games against Seattle and Buffalo with a knee injury and then complained about his lack of carries before the game against Miami. He rushed for 10 yards on four carries, dropped a pass and was booed by the home crowd at MetLife Stadium. The injury to Bradshaw could not have come at a worse time. Leading receiver Hakeem Nicks(notes) pulled a hamstring late in the game and his status for this weekend is uncertain. Neither Bradshaw nor Nicks (38 catches for 575 yards and three touchdowns) practiced Thursday. Edited November 3, 2011 by ajh2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 time stamp? it is on the scroll at ESPN too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 FWIW, "Might not play" and "Might play" say exactly the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 (edited) FWIW, "Might not play" and "Might play" say exactly the same thing. I think this is one of those "partly cloudy" vs "partly sunny" things in that the likelihood of an event included in each expression is different. ETA: In other words, they are not 50-50. Edited November 3, 2011 by Ursa Majoris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coordi88 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 DAMMMMIT! I was in the process of trading him, it had already been accpeted and we were waiting for it to process...this guy literally just texted me saying that he wants to have it cancelled. dont? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 I think this is one of those "partly cloudy" vs "partly sunny" things in that the likelihood of an event included in each expression is different. ETA: In other words, they are not 50-50. In weather the % of clouds dictates the "partly cloudy" vs "partly sunny" thing...in sports journalism/reporting there is no such guideline...so while there is a report saying he MIGHT MISS the game...someone looking for ratings/page views etc could tweak that statement to MIGHT PLAY and in reality they aren't incorrect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 I think this is one of those "partly cloudy" vs "partly sunny" things in that the likelihood of an event included in each expression is different. ETA: In other words, they are not 50-50. I think it's more of a yin vs yang kind of thing, actually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttwarrior4 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 might not play??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 In weather the % of clouds dictates the "partly cloudy" vs "partly sunny" thing...in sports journalism/reporting there is no such guideline...so while there is a report saying he MIGHT MISS the game...someone looking for ratings/page views etc could tweak that statement to MIGHT PLAY and in reality they aren't incorrect. Yeah but in general usage, the phrases "might not play" and "might play" are not interchangeable. Might not play means that, until that point the likelihood was the subject WOULD play. Might play means the likelihood, until this point, was that the subject would NOT play. Might, in this context, usually supports the lesser likelihood. So, might play means he probably still won't, might not play means the chances are he still will. Usually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennykravitz2004 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Roger Murdock: Flight 2-0-9'er, you are cleared for take-off. Captain Oveur: Roger! Roger Murdock: Huh? Tower voice: L.A. departure frequency, 123 point 9'er. Captain Oveur: Roger! Roger Murdock: Huh? Victor Basta: Request vector, over. Captain Oveur: What? Tower voice: Flight 2-0-9'er cleared for vector 324. Roger Murdock: We have clearance, Clarence. Captain Oveur: Roger, Roger. What's our vector, Victor? Tower voice: Tower's radio clearance, over! Captain Oveur: That's Clarence Oveur. Over. Tower voice: Over. Captain Oveur: Roger. Roger Murdock: Huh? Tower voice: Roger, over! Roger Murdock: What? Captain Oveur: Huh? Victor Basta: Who? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Yeah but in general usage, the phrases "might not play" and "might play" are not interchangeable. Might not play means that, until that point the likelihood was the subject WOULD play. Might play means the likelihood, until this point, was that the subject would NOT play. Might, in this context, usually supports the lesser likelihood. So, might play means he probably still won't, might not play means the chances are he still will. Usually. Sometimes you are very funny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNOWBOUND33 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 I think it's more of a yin vs yang kind of thing, actually. Not really. You apparently know little of Taoism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaFreak Posted November 3, 2011 Author Share Posted November 3, 2011 My take: Once the leak got out about the Bradshaw injury NYG front office or staff had someone in their organization contact Shefler in an attempt to cast doubt about the story. Why would Coughlin want to give Belichick any sort of advantage going into this weekends game? Cat and mouse. I for one believe the initial reports that Bradshaw will miss at minimum 2-3 games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfdigger Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 My take: Once the leak got out about the Bradshaw injury NYG front office or staff had someone in their organization contact Shefler in an attempt to cast doubt about the story. Why would Coughlin want to give Belichick any sort of advantage going into this weekends game? Cat and mouse. I for one believe the initial reports that Bradshaw will miss at minimum 2-3 games. Nice, I drafted Charles, McFadden, P. Manning and Bradshaw, guess my season is totally f'd! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Nice, I drafted Charles, McFadden, P. Manning and Bradshaw, guess my season is totally f'd! Maybe or maybe not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) Bradshaw will play. ETA: He's been ruled out. Edited November 4, 2011 by matt770 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNOWBOUND33 Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Bradshaw will play. ETA: He's been ruled out. ETA? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 ETA? Edit To Add Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNOWBOUND33 Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Edit To Add Thanks John. I was having a brain freeze. Probably due to prepping my sleds for the upper midwest winter on the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajh2 Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Per Rotowire via Yahoo: Nov 4 Bradshaw is listed as doubtful for Sunday's game, Ralph Vacchiano of the New York Daily News reports.Recommendation: Although "doubtful" is technically supposed to mean a 25% chance of playing, Julius Peppers is the only player this year to play after being listed as doubtful, so unless the Giants broadcast a retraction, it's time to find a replacement. Brandon Jacobs will take the brunt of the carries in Bradshaw's absence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.