The Way a Packers Forum Should Be
https://packers-huddle.com/phpBB/
I am too. He has a role as a 3rd or 4th CB who can play both the slot and outside...as long as they aren't speedy WR's.
I’d take him as depth on vet minimum, but yea I would have thought he could get more playing time elsewhere based on need
I hate him for us because of the following:Drj820 wrote: ↑03 Aug 2022 11:12I’d take him as depth on vet minimum, but yea I would have thought he could get more playing time elsewhere based on need
Maybe because I still believe that people are innocent until proven guilty in court. Something so many Americans have abandoned over the last few years.Yoop wrote: ↑03 Aug 2022 05:47get serious, the judge was restricted because of lack of testimony, even so she admits to believing the people that investigated and even explains in detail the accusations against Watson likely happened, however without the woman actually testifying it amounts to a back and forth argument, legally she couldn't do more.Raptorman wrote: ↑02 Aug 2022 18:30Yeah, No. You really should read the judge's reasoning before making off-the-wall comments like this.Yoop wrote: ↑02 Aug 2022 13:46
The lawsuits say that Watson sexually harassed and assaulted a number of massage therapists. The specific accusations are wide-ranging but include descriptions of him exposing himself without consent, forcing women into sexual acts and making veiled threats.
https://www.si.com/nfl/2021/03/26/desha ... ts-summary
I admit to expounding concerning veiled threatsbut why would he pay off all these woman if he didn't make threats, the reason he's only getting a 6 game suspension is because he silenced the woman.
I new all this without reading everything on her ruling, so did you, why do you continue to act so dumbfounded, why is it that everything has to be spelled out black and white for you, or it can't possibly be true, you always take the side of the villain, just because according to our law a person is innocent till PROVEN guilty doesn't mean they didn't do the crime, just means they figured out a way to block the truth from being PROVEN. and that seems obvious in this case.
maybe you should go read her transcript, Watson sought out therapist he could pull this crap with, and here you are defending it, figures.
Yeah, the bottom of roster secondary spots will be going to Bisaccia's guys. I like CBs and safeties as gunners, since they have more experience tackling than WRs.Labrev wrote: ↑03 Aug 2022 11:40King can't really play at this point; he didn't look like he can run sub-4.7 last year. Back-of-roster CBs should at least have either special teams value or at least upside to develop into a future quality player.
King doesn't play ST, he frankly would probably suck if you made him do it (can't run and never was a reliable tackler), and he certainly doesn't have upside. I wouldn't even say his experience is an asset because it doesn't translate into veteran savvy on-field.
At best, an emergency in-season signing. I wouldn't bother right now.
So, first the NFL and NFLPA jointly agree upon a disciple officer.... But if the ruling doesn't please the NFL, they can just appeal and name their own judge or just have Goodell decide on his own.
I refer you to Yoho's well versed comment above.Raptorman wrote: ↑03 Aug 2022 15:19Maybe because I still believe that people are innocent until proven guilty in court. Something so many Americans have abandoned over the last few years.Yoop wrote: ↑03 Aug 2022 05:47get serious, the judge was restricted because of lack of testimony, even so she admits to believing the people that investigated and even explains in detail the accusations against Watson likely happened, however without the woman actually testifying it amounts to a back and forth argument, legally she couldn't do more.
I new all this without reading everything on her ruling, so did you, why do you continue to act so dumbfounded, why is it that everything has to be spelled out black and white for you, or it can't possibly be true, you always take the side of the villain, just because according to our law a person is innocent till PROVEN guilty doesn't mean they didn't do the crime, just means they figured out a way to block the truth from being PROVEN. and that seems obvious in this case.
maybe you should go read her transcript, Watson sought out therapist he could pull this crap with, and here you are defending it, figures.
the NFL is screwed up, the reason is Goodell doesn't want to be the bad guy and responsible for the angst he'll get from the Browns if he punishes Watson correctly.salmar80 wrote: ↑03 Aug 2022 16:14So, first the NFL and NFLPA jointly agree upon a disciple officer.... But if the ruling doesn't please the NFL, they can just appeal and name their own judge or just have Goodell decide on his own.
I mean, what a funky system.
What was the point of wasting time of the discipline officer, anyways?
From NFLN, the policy is that the facts cannot be appealed, only the punishment. And both the league and NFLPA can appeal if they don't like the punishment recommendation. The NFL is actually in a stronger position now, since facts-wise the hearing officer affirmed Watson violated policy on all three charges the league brought.salmar80 wrote: ↑03 Aug 2022 16:14So, first the NFL and NFLPA jointly agree upon a disciple officer.... But if the ruling doesn't please the NFL, they can just appeal and name their own judge or just have Goodell decide on his own.
I mean, what a funky system.
What was the point of wasting time of the discipline officer, anyways?
Right, because we are all morally superior than those we judge. Right? But you are correct. People are free to make judgments about others. Just don't be surprised when others do it to you.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑03 Aug 2022 16:07People are legally innocent until proven guilty. They cannot be sent to jail or detained by their government unless proven guilty.
Legally not guilty, however, has no impact on reality. Whether you are guilty or not guilty in court does not change the underlying truth of whether a crime did or did not occur. Or whether or not immoral or exploitative action occurred.
So you can stick to “innocent until proven guilty” for criminal punishment, but it doesn’t prevent you at all from making your own judgments based on your own observations and the evidence. Private entities can have different standards of proof or codes of conduct than legal ones. Individuals are free to pass judgment regardless of legal outcomes.
These are totally separate concepts. Legal and moral and truthful and ethical innocence are different, and treating them differently is thus perfectly acceptable
The lack of punishment for two owners is going to come back and bite them during the next collective bargaining session.wallyuwl wrote: ↑03 Aug 2022 17:17From NFLN, the policy is that the facts cannot be appealed, only the punishment. And both the league and NFLPA can appeal if they don't like the punishment recommendation. The NFL is actually in a stronger position now, since facts-wise the hearing officer affirmed Watson violated policy on all three charges the league brought.salmar80 wrote: ↑03 Aug 2022 16:14So, first the NFL and NFLPA jointly agree upon a disciple officer.... But if the ruling doesn't please the NFL, they can just appeal and name their own judge or just have Goodell decide on his own.
I mean, what a funky system.
What was the point of wasting time of the discipline officer, anyways?
Doubt it. The union sucks anyways. Imagine agreeing to a neutral arbitrator and then agreeing that all appeals go to Goodell lol. Dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. There are so many bottom tier players in the nfl, the league Can Just throw the some crumbs out to them and secure their votes and whip the rest of the players in negotiations every timeRaptorman wrote: ↑03 Aug 2022 18:59The lack of punishment for two owners is going to come back and bite them during the next collective bargaining session.wallyuwl wrote: ↑03 Aug 2022 17:17From NFLN, the policy is that the facts cannot be appealed, only the punishment. And both the league and NFLPA can appeal if they don't like the punishment recommendation. The NFL is actually in a stronger position now, since facts-wise the hearing officer affirmed Watson violated policy on all three charges the league brought.salmar80 wrote: ↑03 Aug 2022 16:14
So, first the NFL and NFLPA jointly agree upon a disciple officer.... But if the ruling doesn't please the NFL, they can just appeal and name their own judge or just have Goodell decide on his own.
I mean, what a funky system.
What was the point of wasting time of the discipline officer, anyways?
I'd hazard to guess that most men have been subjected to a falsehood or two perpetrated by a woman, scorned or not, and that should make everyone at least a bit skeptical when a professional athlete is accused of sexual improprieties.Raptorman wrote: ↑03 Aug 2022 18:57Right, because we are all morally superior than those we judge. Right? But you are correct. People are free to make judgments about others. Just don't be surprised when others do it to you.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑03 Aug 2022 16:07People are legally innocent until proven guilty. They cannot be sent to jail or detained by their government unless proven guilty.
Legally not guilty, however, has no impact on reality. Whether you are guilty or not guilty in court does not change the underlying truth of whether a crime did or did not occur. Or whether or not immoral or exploitative action occurred.
So you can stick to “innocent until proven guilty” for criminal punishment, but it doesn’t prevent you at all from making your own judgments based on your own observations and the evidence. Private entities can have different standards of proof or codes of conduct than legal ones. Individuals are free to pass judgment regardless of legal outcomes.
These are totally separate concepts. Legal and moral and truthful and ethical innocence are different, and treating them differently is thus perfectly acceptable
It would be interesting to know how many here have been falsely accused of something by a woman, other than me. Because when it happens to you, you have a tendency to look at things a little differently.
But go ahead and keep judging, just be careful on those pedestals you put yourselves on.
Well...I'm at 0 so...It would be interesting to know how many here have been falsely accused of something by a woman