Enter your username and password below to sign in to your PewterReport account.
x close
Where does it say he was re-injured? The official stance of the Bucs until they needed a roster spot was that Simms was 100% healthy. Then when they needed the roster spot they had to admit that he wasn't healthy. Why didn't they just say he wasn't healthy from the get go? It would have saved all of this drama. Just one of the many reasons I don't like Gruden/Allen. Simms even said himself during camp that if he was cut he would probably sit out the year in order to get back to 100% and at the same time Gruden was insisting that he didn't want to discuss it because he's practicing and 100% healthy. I think I'll believe Simms.The Washington Post isn't credible? You're just making excuses.
Quote from: BornaBuc on November 28, 2007, 03:02:23 PMWhere does it say he was re-injured? The official stance of the Bucs until they needed a roster spot was that Simms was 100% healthy. Then when they needed the roster spot they had to admit that he wasn't healthy. Why didn't they just say he wasn't healthy from the get go? It would have saved all of this drama. Just one of the many reasons I don't like Gruden/Allen. Simms even said himself during camp that if he was cut he would probably sit out the year in order to get back to 100% and at the same time Gruden was insisting that he didn't want to discuss it because he's practicing and 100% healthy. I think I'll believe Simms.The Washington Post isn't credible? You're just making excuses.You must have missed this part:“There’s a difference between your health and being able to play football, and playing at the level that Chris was playing before his surgery."He was healthy, even when we put him on IR, he just was not recovered enough to play football. Just because they play it close to the vest, and don't spoon feed anyone information does not make them inherantly evil.
Quote from: BornaBuc on November 28, 2007, 03:02:23 PMWhere does it say he was re-injured? The official stance of the Bucs until they needed a roster spot was that Simms was 100% healthy. Then when they needed the roster spot they had to admit that he wasn't healthy. Why didn't they just say he wasn't healthy from the get go? It would have saved all of this drama. Just one of the many reasons I don't like Gruden/Allen. Simms even said himself during camp that if he was cut he would probably sit out the year in order to get back to 100% and at the same time Gruden was insisting that he didn't want to discuss it because he's practicing and 100% healthy. I think I'll believe Simms.The Washington Post isn't credible? You're just making excuses.You must have missed this part:�There�s a difference between your health and being able to play football, and playing at the level that Chris was playing before his surgery."He was healthy, even when we put him on IR, he just was not recovered enough to play football. Just because they play it close to the vest, and don't spoon feed anyone information does not make them inherantly evil.
That is a point I tried to make here all offseason and got bashed for it so here's what I continue to have for you..."He�s out here practicing," Gruden said. "He�s healthy. Why the hell would he go on I.R.? I don�t understand why. We have cleared him to practice."
Amazing how so many keep feeding him. Will you ever get it?
Born if you could somehow harness your hatred for Gruden into something that would make money you would be a millionaire in record time.
Quote from: ufojoe55 on November 28, 2007, 08:51:08 AMAmazing how so many keep feeding him. Will you ever get it? oooh, oooh, I know the answer!(hand raised)