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!

     

Go on record. Who still wants Watson?


Sasquatch
 Share

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, jackson113 said:

Finger in the Ole Anus..😬

7BDB5E03-D970-49AC-84A6-66E91B757152.png

See I cringe when I read this, yuck. However, she stated that she would not entertain his sexual advances. He did not force it further, he did not go into her no-no square. Is this creepy? yes. Does Watson seemingly have issues? yes. Is this illegal? That is the question.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Agent Blue said:

Unless you were there or there was video or audio evidence or a confession, no one should tell a alleged victim they are lying or tell the accused they are guilty. 

At best we can only have opinions. 

There is probably no dumber, more ill informed take available than "unless there's video, we can't be sure".

(ranks right up there with the CSI effect)

Edited by Mr. Scot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, philit99 said:

See I cringe when I read this, yuck. However, she stated that she would not entertain his sexual advances. He did not force it further, he did not go into her no-no square. Is this creepy? yes. Does Watson seemingly have issues? yes. Is this illegal? That is the question.

Technically, what Jerry Richardson did isn't "illegal".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Agent Blue said:

We are deep into cancel culture / metoo. These women would have been A OK had they came forward earlier to police. As that looks better than waiting and going civil. 

You could say the same about Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer and just about every rich person with power that has done things similar to what Watson is being accused of. None of those victims went to the police right away yet all 3 of these men are guilty. 25 accusers doesn’t look good and no team is interested in Watson until there is some more clarity. Please move on....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mr. Scot said:

There is probably no dumber, more I'll informed take available than "unless there's video, we can't be sure".

(ranks right up there with the CSI effect)

Please inform us how you can be sure of sexual assault if 

1) You were not present to actually see or hear said incident. 

2) You have seen no video of said incident. 

3) You have heard no audio of said incident. 

4) You have seen or heard no confession of said incident. 

#goesandgrabspopcorn

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Agent Blue said:

Please inform us how you can be sure of sexual assault if 

1) You were not present to actually see or hear said incident. 

2) You have seen no video of said incident. 

3) You have heard no audio of said incident. 

4) You have seen or heard no confession of said incident. 

#goesandgrabspopcorn

I tend to believe 25 women telling essentially the same story

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Agent Blue said:

Please inform us how you can be sure of sexual assault if 

1) You were not present to actually see or hear said incident. 

2) You have seen no video of said incident. 

3) You have heard no audio of said incident. 

4) You have seen or heard no confession of said incident. 

#goesandgrabspopcorn

Guys who are guilty of rape would absolutely love to have someone like you on their jury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

Guys who are guilty of rape would absolutely love to have someone like you on their jury.

I would go off the evidence available. 

I would not convict anyone on some he said she said. 

Gotta be something more. 

There is an old saying. Goes like i'd rather 100 criminals walk free than convict and imprison 1 innocent man. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Money, power and fame also help a lot of these guys get away with the stuff they do.

I agree Mr Scot. My issue is the number of complaints that happen well after the fact, as if to simply pile on to something you condoned at the time. I honestly think Watson has issues, but this just seems like character assassination or a money grab, revenge deal.

Edited by philit99
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

    • Sure it does, maybe not every position and not every draft.  You have to admit the hit rate goes down the further in the draft you get.  Would you more readily find a generational talent at the #2 pick or #19 pick?  High picks are considered "busts" if they doesn't pan out, whereas guys drafted later don't have that level of scrutiny upon them.  Different expectation levels.  If Styles does indeed go #2, I already listed the rarefied air that he would be in.  Maybe he doesn't set the League on fire, but my gut feeling is he does.  Again, you don't take an off-ball LB #2 if he is just a 'really good' player.
    • To illustrate my point, I watched (and commented on the Huddle) that Rozeboom would often wait a full second (or close to it) before taking his first step.  I assume that he probably had issues with false steps, a faulty practice that can take an ILB out of the gap completely.  Watch Luke and you see a step with the snap, and rarely was it a false step.  Rozeboom may have had 100 tackles (speculating) but initial contact was 2-3 yards on the defensive side of the ball.  Luke's 100 tackles were made 1-2 yards from the LOS.  Over the course of a year, Luke was much more productive (more fumbles, fewer long gainers, more OL penalties, fewer first downs, etc) that Rozeboom, but on the stat sheet, they both had 100 tackles.  In fact, Rozeboom's inefficiency kept him on the field more (more first downs, fewer OL penalties, turnovers, and punts) so he should have MORE tackles.   I would like to see stats that break down those things.   For example again, Josh Norman was slow--4.68 or so at CB.  However, his anticipation speed was incredible.  He made as many plays as a 4.4 CB.  I had one coach (college--later became the head coach at WCU) tell me that slower players have to use their brains more to still be around.  Elite athletes can just get by on their physical superiority.  He added, "Rarely does a football player run full speed.  Most of the time, they are not, so the 40 time is misleading stat.  Smart players overcome shortcomings--when the elite athlete becomes average (slows with age, advances in level of competition) they struggle against smarter (football IQ) competition.  
    • Obviously tongue in cheek hyperbole. But we do not need a first round RB to compete for a championship. We need intelligent roster building. That to me is the complete opposite of intelligent roster building because it is a prime resource at a devalued plug and play position when we have needs across the defense.
×
×
  • Create New...