Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

BigJim®

Members
  • Posts

    6,362
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by BigJim®

  1. Right, that is how I viewed also, and why I question how his other WRs feel about his power play.
  2. Right, I get that. But demanding another mouth at the table has to diminish the food available to one already seated. And, IMHO, speaks to the quality of folks already at the table.
  3. So Rodgers was demanding they bring back a guy to sit on a bench behind MVS/Lazard/ESB/Rodgers?
  4. I disagree that anyone who is following the story would perceive anything beyond a $100M player settling just to be rid of the situation. I say that because settlement was not immediate, his attorney has protested any confidential settlement, prosecutors conducted witness interviews and did not file charges, NFL has conducted interviews and not suspended or put on leave, etc. in short, a whole bunch of things that run contrary to guilt. But assuming you are right, perception of wrongdoing results in… what exactly?
  5. I wonder which WR currently on the roster is most pissed off by this power play/demotion?
  6. They're getting Cobb back?!?. Man, Rodgers destroyed Green Bay front office in this negotiation. Hopefully he doesn't get a god complex.
  7. Right. And if we're being honest, their track record indicates the likelihood of the Texans front office negotiating a fair trade was remote even in the best of circumstances.
  8. Yeah, otherwise you have to constantly be good enough to beat out your back up. Oh the horror.
  9. They need to drum up a multi bid, and take the best offer ASAP. They played the long game and it backfired. It could backfire worse yet though, if criminal charges are filed or he suffers significant injury in camp.
  10. As an Ertz owner, I’m praying he’s not being held to trade as a component in a Watson trade.
  11. If true, how ridiculously selfish and thin skinned of Rodgers.
  12. It's not a punishment to anyone. It's a measure - one of the few we have - in effort to reduce transmission.
  13. It is "Punishing" in the definitional sense? i.e. "inflict a penalty or sanction on (someone) as retribution for an offense, especially a transgression of a legal or moral code." Are you sure you don't mean "really inconvenient" or "uncomfortable"? Why does it have to be described as punitive?
  14. Can't we just view it as efforts to save lives? It's only a punishment for people who view mask wearing as making some other statement, typically a political one. It's just not.
  15. That was my only point. You don't have to call someone a prostitute to suggest they became added to a list looking for a payday, having never filed a police report previously. It's going to be a challenge in any action with 24 plaintiffs, who may or may not have pasts. A lot of that won't even be known until discovery/depositions are complete. Sexual assault is a serious allegation and they should expect to have credibility impeached with anything under the sun.
  16. Yeah, agreed. I said "sling mud" - mass raiders said "call them prostitutes." I would expect him to argue that the allegations are wrong. However, in he said/she said you do need to impeach credibility of the person making an allegation.
  17. Of course I'm not unfamiliar that there are professional massage therapists. I don't know all of these plaintiffs are. They may be. His long time massage therapist said she dropped him as a client because he was using so many she was unfamiliar with and "he needed to be careful Bc his name is getting around." Who knows where 24 therapists were found over a short period of time.
  18. I'm not going to argue good/bad (would not want to be involved in this area of law), but it is basically textbook in these sorts of cases to demonize the victims, and depict them as money grabbers. What other defense is there?
  19. Not at all. HAS requires surgeries in some cases. I never said he was eating fritos or sitting on a couch. Honestly, I think I'm done here when you think the rest of my post about a pro athlete losing 2 'in his prime prime' seasons supports your tone, and you putting opinions in my mouth. It's annoying. He is in fact losing a big part of his prime, and at least one season where he could have contended. It's confusing, but I'm not looking to get into some grandstanding 'how dare this confuse you' debate about it.
  20. I don't think that would be necessary. You seem to have more info than I do on the "professional masseuse" designation. I know nothing about their certification, how he found them, etc.
  21. Yeah, it's a puzzle for sure. I think this has been a money grab all along for Buzbee (not talking about the merits, there no doubt are some). But that's his job. I just think his strategy to come out with a bazooka (15-20 plaintiffs), over a long offseason, backfired when it did not lead to settlement. I've heard a lot of sports gurus opine that it should have, so hard to question the strategy completely. However, as it has played out, in particular that there were no criminal charges (yet) or NFL suspension (yet) after many many interviews, it makes the claims look more iffy and pressure decreases over time on Watson to settle. Not a doubt in my mind that many of these plaintiffs got onboard with assurance they'd never need to go through a trial. Given common stereotyping of the private masseuse industry, suspect it would not be difficult for a defense attorney to sling a ton of mud. That's where 24 plaintiffs, with likely different histories, may work against Buzbee. Would be better to have 3 snow whites.
  22. He lost in the court of public opinion? Maybe when the story broke, but seems to me people have moved past it. The fact there is no criminal charge after 10 victim interviews, I think, has most folks still unclear what is going on here. Memories are short when it comes to pro athletes. I do agree he could probably sign a nondisclosure after being very public he did not want one. Maybe that is where this ends.
  23. I'm not sure why you are reacting to me in that tone. I'm not suggesting he should cause himself to be unable to walk when he's old. That's silly. But he had the surgery now rather than retire, so why do you believe ability to walk is in the balance? The point is this is a professional athlete who will miss the better parts of 2 seasons in his prime. The first one, putting additional stress on a body party that ultimately required surgery. That can't be good either for the ankle he needs when he's older.
  24. His reasons may be what you say, although I doubt Watson wants to talk much about this situation at all once resolved. His attorney said the reason for this requirement is Watson does not want the stigma of "of course you demanded a nondisclosure to settle, because you are guilty and have something to hide."
×
  • Create New...