Mr. Scot

Good luck with that.

Aaahhh, don't think I could sign on to that idea. I'd say Fields is significantly better than Tyrod Taylor.

That's a comparison I could see. LG and I were discussing that earlier. Fields might be about as fast as Vick but he doesn't seem quite as elusive.

We're not really gonna have another one of these "I don't believe women if they don't handle it the way I think they ought to" discussions are we? Good Lord

Is Fields "Cam Lite" or is he Vick with better passing skills?

I'd opt for neither.

Yeah, it's not just "being naked". Three different women have accused him of forcing them to perform oral sex. Also worth remembering that if you expose yourself in areas where you're not supposed to or where it's unwanted, that's enough to get you arrested.

Fair enough.

Kudos if you read the title in George Thorogood's singing voice. In truth though, the question is about who the Panthers love. A few days back, Joe Person stated that the Panthers weren't all that enthralled with any of the quarterbacks outside the top two. In his mailbag today, Albert Breer hinted that the Panthers don't necessarily "love" all of the top five quarterbacks, saying that whether or not we'd be willing to trade up for someone who fell out of the first four or five picks was dependent on whether it was a quarterback we were really interested in. Breer didn't often offer any specifics as to who we loved and who we didn't. Plus it's worth noting that Person's comments were made before Justin Fields Pro Day. So the question that I would then ask regarding the top five quarterbacks (Lawrence, Wilson, Fields, Lance and Jones) is this: Who do you think the Panthers love, and who do they not?

Don't know if it's even in this thread, but I remember replying to it.

And here I thought it was Florida's pro day and Kyle Pitts was there. Had no idea it was all actually centered around Trask

You wanted to hear from a licensed massage therapist. From the story: She is a licensed massage therapist who owns her own business in Houston. You asked if she worked out of her home and said "we don't know anything". Again, from the story: She met Watson when he arrived at her rented office space in the fall of 2019. And besides the vetting, they also reached out to Watson's attorney. His response was basically "I don't have time to talk about this. We're busy!" I'd add that you previously referred to all the accusers as "a bunch of nobodies", like Watson being famous and them being unknown somehow invalidated everything. Is that the path you're sticking with?

Looking back at our history, there's an unfortunate amount of crossover between "bold" and "dumb". Our new leadership has promised to be bold. Here's hoping they leave that other part behind.

Yeah, I think I'll skip this one.

Maybe, but I could also see a case where the defense becomes "okay, technically he did it but he has a mental problem so it's not really his fault." Heaven knows that defense gets used plenty. Heck, they've already tacitly admitted to a sexual encounter happening with one of the accusers but said it was consensual. Could se more of that too. It's not a good look, but I suspect they'll care more about whether it's effective.

This is how I know you haven't read the story, because those questions are answered in the article.

I would have been fine with getting Watson before all this stuff happened (though I wasn't really up on the idea of trading away a huge haul). Now, until there's some resolution to this - and probably even after - he's toxic. Is he guilty? I don't know, but it looks really bad especially in light of the SI story. For him to come him out of this looking clean and innocent would take nothing short of a biblical miracle. And somehow, I just don't think that's in the cards. What would be required for him to settle? That's pretty flexible, but I seriously doubt any settlement is going to involve all the accusers just saying "Nope. He didn't do anything. Sorry to have troubled you." Maybe you see that as a realistic outcome. I don't.

Some analysts are talking as if they already have.

I've read them all but the latest. And based on your response, I'm not really even sure you understand what I've said in my posts, so you'll have to pardon me if I don't exactly trust your interpretation of legal documents.

Not exactly free agency news, but word is that Dan Snyder has now bought out all the minority partners for the Washington Football Team, thus making him the sole owner. This move reportedly helps settle some of the lawsuits that had been brought against the team and minimizes any possibility that Snyder will be forced to sell. Now imagine the faces of WFT fans hearing this news...

Their requirements now are $500 and an admission of guilt. Somehow I don't an offer of $250 and no admission of any wrongdoing on Watson's part is going to do the trick. Throw in that if he does settle for a larger amount of money, do you really think that's going to make everybody believe he's innocent?

We have an actual lawyer on here who says otherwise.

For one, every single lawsuit filed is demanding an admission of guilt. So unless you think all 20 plus women are just going to drop that request, then yes, that will be a requirement to settle. The sex offender thing is a hypothetical. It's the kind of thing that's been requested in other lawsuits.

Sports illustrated knows exactly who she is, and what her credentials are. That's why they reached out to her. You not knowing who she is doesn't delegitimize those things. And again, civil court doesn't work that way. There's no presumption of innocence in a lawsuit.

The option of trading for somebody like Sam Darnold is open too.