Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Civil lawsuit against J. Winston


Jmac

Recommended Posts

Its Jameis.... no offense but Darren and Bill aren't what he is. He had plenty of girls want him and you would think he would rape a girl who looks like that? The vagina must be heavenly. 

 

He was redshirting and had never played a snap at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's quite obvious he didn't rape this bitch... I mean look at her.... not exactly "lose your career." Worthy.

You're a dumbass. Seriously, have you put any effort to improve your clearly low intellect in your entire life?

Rape has nothing to do with how 'hot' girl is.

And only pathetic men who've been rejected their whole lives call females 'bitches'.

Sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its Jameis.... no offense but Darren and Bill aren't what he is. He had plenty of girls want him and you would think he would rape a girl who looks like that? The vagina must be heavenly.

Rape has nothing to do with sex nor attractiveness you dimwit. It has to do with power and control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if he's found guilty if the NFL will take some disciplinary action. I mean they lost their poo when they benched a legally innocent man for the entire season, how is it gonna look if a convicted rapist is drafted #1 and the NFL does nothing. The women's groups who blasted the NFL in the wake of Ray rice, Ray McDonald and Greg hardy will have an absolute field day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will the backlash from sponsors and assorted woman's groups to the team that drafts him be a factor? Regardless if the case is won or lost, the stygma of the accusation may be a problem.

Some GM's may not want the headache and the risk of problems in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This issue is a serious one and it is serious both ways.  Most of the cases brought to the public eye are legitimate but many these days are just people ruining someones life with the accusations.

 

I could not make a judgement either way until some more information comes out, but part of me is wondering, especially with the timing, if there was some deadline that passed and the story/lawsuit took place 2 weeks before the draft.

 

If it is true, he could drop a couple rounds, but time will not allow for the truth here, so teams might judge this on what they already knew and what he told them and whether or not there is new info in the lawsuit that he withheld from them.

 

Would actually hate to be Tampa in this situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why wait three years after the fact then after the incident happened? I kinda can get the fact she may be embarrased that it happaned and can't handle the emotions to testify against him or that others may judge her as being weak and family/friends may not be able to look at her the same way(fug those people fyi), but still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
    • Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...