The NFL Network received a ton of backlash after wrongly announcing that Saints wide receiver Michael Thomas had demanded a trade. Viewers did not take this false report lightly as fans from all over bombarded Twitter and dragged the network's name through the mud.
Highly-coveted NFL insider Ian Rapoport featured in a segment about Thomas and tweeted out the news himself. This left football fans all over in confusion.
False headline from NFL Network
The tweet was then deleted from his Twitter account the following morning (August 11). It ultimately created more confusion because the tweet was up for over 12 hours. Be that as it may, as pointed out in the tweet below, just because both parties have an issue with one another doesn't mean that the relationship is over.
Even though no one has a clue what's going on with NFL Network, fans were not happy with the report There's clearly a conundrum reaching its boiling point. However, for the network to create its own headlines based on inaccurate facts is unprofessional - plain and simple.
The Michael Thomas and Saints' wavering relationship
It's no secret that there is a deteriorating relationship between the New Orleans Saints and Michael Thomas. Head coach Sean Payton and Thomas met to clear the air regarding the timing of the 27-year-old's ankle surgery and subsequent posts on social media that expressed the receivers' frustrations.
The Saints' star wideout underwent ankle surgery in June which put his availability for the start of the 2021 NFL season in jeopardy. The timing of this surgery couldn't have come at a worse time. The recommended timetable for the recovery of this procedure is said to be four months. This means Thomas will miss a few weeks at the start of the season.
Considering all of the above, there's a real reason to suspect that Thomas could in fact demand a trade. That being said, the NFL Network jumped the gun and announced created a report based on pure conjecture. A future trade could very well be on the horizon, but, as for now, that's not the case.
Comments
