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!

     

Per Adam Schefter, “In speaking to some teams, I don’t think this is going to deter anyone’s interest in trading for Deshaun Watson”


Julio
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Mr. Scot said:

For these specific accusations to be false, then all of the women making them would have to be liars.

There's really no way around that.

Sorry, but that is inaccurate. In psychology it's referred to as false memories. The difference of memory from reality is exasperated with time and can even be manipulated. This has been studied thoroughly and proven to be true. So, a person can believe what they are saying is true because they have convinced themselves that it is true or have been lead into believing they remember something in a particular way. This is often the problem with people making accusations long after events have taken place. There have even been studies about this and how even a recent event can be falsely remembered particularly if there is manipulation involved. 

So the point is, it's been proven that people can remember things incorrectly after even a short period of time and the longer that time is the more the memory can differentiate from reality. It's also been proven that a person's memory can be manipulated to a certain goal. The ladies could actually not be liars and yet at the same time not be telling what really happened. 

 

Memory Distortions | Boundless Psychology (lumenlearning.com)

False Memories - Psychologist World

When Memories Are Remembered, They Can Be Rewritten (nationalgeographic.com)

 

Just some fast examples

 

Edited by Panthers Rhule
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue at hand is guilty or not, you can’t trade away likely 3 first round picks and a player or two with this issue going out there unresolved.

Especially when we likely can draft a QB with just one of those picks and then still have the rest to keep.

If it gets resolved before the draft and he’s cleared, go all in, but if not, you draft a new QB and move on

Edited by tukafan21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh and there is NO WAY their owner is behind this, it would make no sense as it ether hurts his trade value even if proven false as that will take time to come out, or gets him a serious suspension and possible jail time if true.

Neither scenario helps the Texans, and I can’t see him doing this thinking it will destroy his trade value and get him o come back to the Texans, as it eventually would come out that he was behind it, and then he’s screwed.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Panthers Rhule said:

Sorry, but that is inaccurate. In psychology it's referred to as false memories. The difference of memory from reality is exasperated with time and can even be manipulated. This has been studied thoroughly and proven to be true. So, a person can believe what they are saying is true because they have convinced themselves that it is true or have been lead into believing they remember something in a particular way. This is often the problem with people making accusations long after events have taken place. There have even been studies about this and how even a recent event can be falsely remembered particularly if there is manipulation involved. 

So the point is, it's been proven that people can remember things incorrectly after even a short period of time and the longer that time is the more the memory can differentiate from reality. It's also been proven that a person's memory can be manipulated to a certain goal. The ladies could actually not be liars and yet at the same time not be telling what really happened. 

 

Memory Distortions | Boundless Psychology (lumenlearning.com)

False Memories - Psychologist World

When Memories Are Remembered, They Can Be Rewritten (nationalgeographic.com)

 

Just some fast examples

 

Nine different women having false memories at once would be a pretty big stretch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Nine different women having false memories at once would be a pretty big stretch.

Not according to the science. Nine women being attacked in this way over the course of one year could be considered a stretch too. Not one reporting it to anyone before or contacting police could be seen as a stretch too. This lawyer being the contact of all victims could be seen as a stretch too. Non one reporting anything until Texans are ready to trade him could be seen as a stretch too. The science mentions nothing about odds of probability. It's true with everyone and all types of people. Ever tried the word of mouth game? Say one thing to one person and let them repeat it till the end and it-s completely wrong. Ever seen a fight and asked everyone what happened. Everyone says something completely different? Groups can even increase the odds of false memory. 

Edited by Panthers Rhule
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, tukafan21 said:

Oh and there is NO WAY their owner is behind this, it would make no sense as it ether hurts his trade value even if proven false as that will take time to come out, or gets him a serious suspension and possible jail time if true.

Neither scenario helps the Texans, and I can’t see him doing this thinking it will destroy his trade value and get him o come back to the Texans, as it eventually would come out that he was behind it, and then he’s screwed.

Well, be could play the As-a-Christian-I-believe-in-forgiveness card. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone needs to keep in mind that this is a civil litigation, not a criminal one. There is a lower standard of proof required. 
 

We may not get any more than the “he said, she said” evidence presented. If that is the case, this may not go anywhere.

 

Anyways, no need to get heated amongst each other. All love. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Trainwreck said:

I’m not giving up two players in addition to draft picks. That’s the dumbest thing ever any team could do. 

It will be much less than that now. Now some other team that is willing to “take a chance” will get a great deal on a qb for less than it would have cost a week ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

really interesting combination of "yeah man women are bitches who will accuse you of rape, man you can't even touch a woman these days" and "yeah we need to not touch this guy, he's a liability" coming out of the exact same mouths

🛻🛻🛻

  • Pie 1
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Monrowed said:

It will be much less than that now. Now some other team that is willing to “take a chance” will get a great deal on a qb for less than it would have cost a week ago.

No chance.

DW's value is either static, or zero.

Even more reason for the Texans to hold onto him now...

...if he sits the season and this all turns out to be much ado about nothing his trade value will be even more this same time next year -- and the Texans will have picked up another high draft pick in the interim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • This 1000%.  Hey who wants to sign with the guy that couldn't even get his client the guaranteed contract of a 3rd round pick?  Lmao
    • I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
    • adamantium? adam? adam thielen super bowl game winning catch ?
×
×
  • Create New...