2023 NFL Regular Season Through Super Bowl LVIII

[monkeypower]

27 minutes ago, throwuascenario said:

Let me make it as simple as possible: 

 

Guilty = Guilty

 

Anything else = Innocent

 

What about the phrase " innocent until proven guilty" do you not understand?

 

You literally need to ask yourself one question. Was he proven guilty? If not - as per the beginning of the phrase - he is innocent.

 

By the strict legal definition, he is 'innocent" as in he has not been found criminally guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. However, what he "allegedly" did is infamously hard to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law and many such cases will never even come close to a criminal trial because of it.

 

As stated by others, there is also a difference between "innocent" and "not guilty". They are not the same thing.

[throwuascenario]

25 minutes ago, monkeypower said:

 

By the strict legal definition, he is 'innocent" as in he has not been found criminally guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. However, what he "allegedly" did is infamously hard to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law and many such cases will never even come close to a criminal trial because of it.

 

As stated by others, there is also a difference between "innocent" and "not guilty". They are not the same thing.

 

I'm done going in circles. You win. He definitely did it because a lawyer rounded up a bunch of women and sued him with 0 evidence. Happy?

 

By the way, the "not guilty" vs "innocent" thing doesn't even apply here. This case didn't even make it to criminal trial because their evidence was so weak.

 

The only reason he wasn't found innocent is because the case literally didn't even have enough evidence to go to trial.

[Sykotyk]

38 minutes ago, throwuascenario said:

 

I'm done going in circles. You win. He definitely did it because a lawyer rounded up a bunch of women and sued him with 0 evidence. Happy?

 

By the way, the "not guilty" vs "innocent" thing doesn't even apply here. This case didn't even make it to criminal trial because their evidence was so weak.

 

The only reason he wasn't found innocent is because the case literally didn't even have enough evidence to go to trial.

Innocent is a statement of fact. 

 

Guilty is statement of fact. 

 

Not guilty is not a statement of fact. It's implicitly stating you don't have enough proof to go either way. 

[See Red]

33 minutes ago, throwuascenario said:

 

I'm done going in circles. You win. He definitely did it because a lawyer rounded up a bunch of women and sued him with 0 evidence. Happy?

 

By the way, the "not guilty" vs "innocent" thing doesn't even apply here. This case didn't even make it to criminal trial because their evidence was so weak.

 

The only reason he wasn't found innocent is because the case literally didn't even have enough evidence to go to trial.

As you’ve been told countless times now, sexually assault is incredibly difficult to prove.  How would you go about proving somebody pushed your mouth or hand to their privates or forced you to give them oral sex?  Keep in mind that in this scenario, you’re a 110 pound woman and he’s a professional athlete.

 

Ignoring the sketchiness of seeing that many message therapists to begin with…the percentage of false accusations are somewhere between 2% and 10%. What do you think is the likelihood of finding 20+ women willing to falsely accuse him of sexual assault?  Pretty low. Now what’s the likelihood of finding 20+ Houston area massage therapists who can prove they’ve given him massages that are willing to falsely accuse him?  It’s impossibly low.

 

This guy doesn’t deserve to be defended. 

[The_Admiral]

1 hour ago, See Red said:

For one, innocent until proven guilty applies to the justice system, not to HR departments.

 

But that raises an interesting question. What do people believe in more: America, or HR departments? 

[throwuascenario]

9 minutes ago, See Red said:

As you’ve been told countless times now, sexually assault is incredibly difficult to prove.  How would you go about proving somebody pushed your mouth or hand to their privates or forced you to give them oral sex?  Keep in mind that in this scenario, you’re a 110 pound woman and he’s a professional athlete.

 

Ignoring the sketchiness of seeing that many message therapists to begin with…the percentage of false accusations are somewhere between 2% and 10%. What do you think is the likelihood of finding 20+ women willing to falsely accuse him of sexual assault?  Pretty low. Now what’s the likelihood of finding 20+ Houston area massage therapists who can prove they’ve given him massages that are willing to falsely accuse him?  It’s impossibly low.

 

This guy doesn’t deserve to be defended. 

 

As I've said countless times, it does not matter how difficult it is to prove. If it can't be proven, he is presumed innocent. This is an extremely basic, easy-to-grasp concept in this country. I do not understand where the confusion is coming from.

 

Where are you getting the numbers 2%-10%? If we knew with absolute certainty which ones were false and which ones weren't, this entire conversation would be pointless. Pretending that you know exactly what percentage of accusations are false is laughable.

 

None of these women proved literally anything at all. The civil case was settled so he could go back to playing and the criminal case was thrown out due to lack of evidence. Where in that line of events did anyone prove that they had even met Watson? Even if they could prove they knew him, that's hardly evidence of sexual assault.

 

And finding 20+ women in a metro of 7M people who are willing to grab a payday of hundreds of thousands of dollars at minimum in exchange for accusing him would be literally the easiest thing ever. Imagine walking the streets of Houston, handing out thousand dollar bills. It would literally be that easy.

[The_Admiral]

I'm not a mod but I know a wayward path when I see one

[monkeypower]

23 minutes ago, throwuascenario said:

As I've said countless times, it does not matter how difficult it is to prove. If it can't be proven, he is presumed innocent. This is an extremely basic, easy-to-grasp concept in this country. I do not understand where the confusion is coming from.

 

Yes, it does matter how difficult it is to prove because it is not an extremely basic, easy-to-grasp concept unless you are thinking in the most surface level understanding.

 

Yes, "innocent until proven guilty" is the baseline and how guilt is legally doled out and how people should be assumed to be, but it is often used as an over simplified rebuttal without considering how the legal system functions, how certain crimes and people are dealt with, the difference between "innocent" and "not guilty", etc.

 

You can keep caping for Watson by using semantics and saying he wasn't found guilty so that must mean he is innocent, but that ignores the realities of the justice system and the various outcomes/offshoots/repercussions of starting at "innocent until proven guilty". Especially for something of what Watson was accused of.

 

I'll just be done with this now.

[PERRIN]

I know it sounds crazy, but I'd much rather defend an assortment of potential-but-unlikely liars than a more-than-likely serial sexual abuser 

[See Red]

9 minutes ago, throwuascenario said:

 

As I've said countless times, it does not matter how difficult it is to prove. If it can't be proven, he is presumed innocent. This is an extremely basic, easy-to-grasp concept in this country. I do not understand where the confusion is coming from.

 

The confusion is clearly on your end. His presumption of innocence means he is not in jail. It is not relevant towards anything else. 

 

9 minutes ago, throwuascenario said:

Where are you getting the numbers 2%-10%? If we knew with absolute certainty which ones were false and which ones weren't, this entire conversation would be pointless. Pretending that you know exactly what percentage of accusations are false is laughable.

There are a number of peer-reviewed studies on this. You can prove they’re incorrect if you’d like. 

 

9 minutes ago, throwuascenario said:

And finding 20+ women in a metro of 7M people who are willing to grab a payday of hundreds of thousands of dollars at minimum in exchange for accusing him would be literally the easiest thing ever. Imagine walking the streets of Houston, handing out thousand dollar bills. It would literally be that easy.

 

There’s not a pool of 7m people here. The pool is not everybody in the Houston area. The pool is women who have given Deshaun Watson a massage.  It’s significantly smaller. This isn’t that difficult. 

[infrared41]

2 hours ago, throwuascenario said:

What about the phrase " innocent until proven guilty" do you not understand?

 

It's presumed innocent until proven guilty. Words matter.

 

2 hours ago, throwuascenario said:

If you make hundreds of millions of dollars at work, yes.

 

So you would have no issue with people thinking you are a sexual predator. That's an interesting position to take.

[infrared41]

24 minutes ago, the admiral said:

I'm not a mod but I know a wayward path when I see one

 

I am a mod and you're correct.

[throwuascenario]

18 minutes ago, See Red said:

 

The confusion is clearly on your end. His presumption of innocence means he is not in jail. It is not relevant towards anything else. 

 

There are a number of peer-reviewed studies on this. You can prove they’re incorrect if you’d like. 

 

 

There’s not a pool of 7m people here. The pool is not everybody in the Houston area. The pool is women who have given Deshaun Watson a massage.  It’s significantly smaller. This isn’t that difficult. 

 

I choose to think that presumption of innocence extends beyond the courtroom, but if you choose to think otherwise, no one will stop you from witch-hunting.

 

Oh my, a peer reviewed study!! Guys, we solved the criminal justice system! A peer reviewed study was able to figure out exactly which cases were fabricated and not without even having to be present at any of them! We should just replace our entire criminal justice system with a copy of this peer reviewed study.

 

Seriously though, please summarize how these studies came to their conclusions and how they were able to figure out guilt and innocence and guilt in every single case to give an exact percentage. Why aren't we using these exact methods in every case while they are still in trial then?

 

5 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

So you would have no issue with people thinking you are a sex predator. That's an interesting position to take.

 

I'm sure he cares some, but A) lots of people hear the words "accusation" and won't give a second thought that he might be innocent no matter what, even if - say - the criminal case was thrown out before trial due to lack of evidence

 

and B. He cares about $230M more than he cares what random people on the internet think about him.

[The_Admiral]

I'm eager to see what the Browns can do without Watson the rest of the way. They remind me of the '05 Bears where every game was a dog walking on its hind legs but they almost always won. It's even more of a novelty now in a league that is much more offense-oriented than it was 18 years ago.

[infrared41]

47 minutes ago, throwuascenario said:

I'm sure he cares some, but A) lots of people hear the words "accusation" and won't give a second thought that he might be innocent no matter what, even if - say - the criminal case was thrown out before trial due to lack of evidence

 

and B. He cares about $230M more than he cares what random people on the internet think about him.

 

I guess I stand corrected. I had no idea you know exactly what Deshaun Watson thinks.

[Cujo]

Huge game tonight. ESPN Kelce dickride fest EERRR Super Bowl 57 rematch

[The_Admiral]

I just learned that only because of the strikes has Monday Night Football been on ABC every week this season rather than just here and there in the absence of anything better. That worked out well. Eagles-Chiefs, Super Bowl rematch with both leading their conferences, actually feels worthy of prime-time network television. I think it's worth reimagining Monday Night Football as a true #2 game of the week with ABC branding and all that. It'll never happen, though.

[GDAWG]

 

His college numbers: 12 TD, 26 INT

His NFL numbers: 3 TD, 9 INT

[BBTV]

7 minutes ago, the admiral said:

actually feels worthy of prime-time network television.

 

Feels is the key word.  I don't see it being worthy.  All things being equal on a neutral (proper) field and maybe.  But the Eagles are the weakest 8-1 team of all time right now.  They're basically only slightly better than all those ass Vikings teams, just with a lot more defensive talent that's not living up to expectations after losing their starting slot CB.

 

They will not be able to cover Kelce, even if they lock a safety and a LB onto him.  Their PhD multi-degreed DC didn't get a degree in football, and has these guys playing the weakest coverages you can, along with a penchant for putting unprepared rookies against star WRs 1-on-1.  Mahomes will pass and run all over this team, unless the pass rush does its thing - but Mahomes is the one guy that can beat that.

 

Eagles offense should do OK, though the Chiefs clearly have improved on defense.  I'm not convinced that Hurts' knee is fully healed, in which case they'll have no running game because teams don't have to account for him.

 

The only way the Eagles will stay in this is if they can establish a running game and long drives so as to keep the Chiefs offense on the bench.  It's not even about them scoring points - it's about preventing the Chiefs from having the opportunity to score points.

 

Add that to the fact that it's the Chiefs 10th home game of the season, Andy Reid has the best post-bye record ever, and this one isn't going to be as close as many predict.

 

31-24 KC.

[Red Comet]

It’s going to be a hell of a game. I could also see the biggest audience for a Monday Night Game in at least 10 years. A Super Bowl rematch/preview is always going to be fantastic. Even if the Eagles are weakened a bit, they are still the class of the NFC. The Chiefs are relatively poor offensively so the Eagles not being at full strength isn’t as big of a disadvantage as believed. But something tells me that the Chiefs offense is going to go off tonight. Feel free to screencap this if they turn it over 3 times before halftime. 
 

I’m ready for some football. A Monday Night party, if you will. 

Edited November 21, 2023 by Red Comet