the original report was, in pfts usual manner, trying to suggest that the Pats could get into hot water because of them stashing Demps on IR when he (again - reportedly, allegedly, whatever you want to call it and which even most of the Pats fans admit to) isn't actually injured. again, what I actually said was that given the Pats own association with a well known IR related incident in which they got a player they wanted it would be funny (to me) if they were to be on the receiving end of this IR related nothingness.
which player? the article only mentions Ballard who wasn't available because of any IR issue, which is one of many reasons why their argument is full of shit, so any argument you make that is based on what the article states is equally as flawed.
But I am not arguing about anything? All I ever intended to say was "lol if the patriots get into some IR related bother about Demps"
Giants waived Ballard, so he was available to all teams. Demps was put on IR, so he is not available to all teams. I'm not sure what you are suggesting would happen to "hurt" the Patriots. Please be more clear.
no, you keep stating about "their own" IR situation in comparison to the Giants losing Ballard, which wasn't an IR issue: if the NFL intervened with this situation and took Demps away it wouldn't be some ironic justice because of how they got Ballard. the two have nothing to d with one another.
Why would NE lose demps for placing him on ir? They didn't waive/release him like the Giants did to Ballard. There is nothing remotely similar about the situations except that both are New England Patriots.
