DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Will Watson be the Browns Starting QB...continued

Which is why nobody is forcing you to read it. I see the same thing on FB a lot. People say the story is a waste of space. That's it's not worth their time. That they're tired of hearing about it. To which I usually reply, "Yet here you are".

So you were clearly talking about the victims attorney then just like I indicated you were. You're not very good at trying to hide your intentions.

You obviously missed the title to the thread......

Will Watson be the Browns Starting QB...continued

This thread isn't about watson's play, other players or anything other than whether watson will be the starter at the beginning of the season. I know how it bothers you when you can't steer a thread or highjack a thread in the direction you want it to go. But you do have the option of starting a thread about the things you have mentioned which are totally unrelated to this topic.

As I said earlier, I responded to Vers' Clowney post but I guess it wasn't the type of response Vers was looking for...can't help that...

I even clicked on the link and read the entire Clowney article, finding this bit of information from Clowney...

Quote

Despite his allegiance to Watson, Clowney wasn’t about to throw Baker Mayfield under the bus. While the stingy defense had to deal with a points-starved offense, Clowney doesn’t hold it against Mayfield.

“I ain’t going to get into that because my boy Baker, that’s my guy,” he said. “I like Baker, good person, great person. I’m just glad to be back here doing my thing.”

vers probably won't like that Clowney comment either...oh well..!

Three in a row.

#selfinflictedwounds

j/c:

You deride and chastise Mac for posting multiple, different news stories with mostly with different updates on Watson ... and here you are spamming the boards with the SAME story. smh

Nice! It's not just me saying it.

Will Watson be the starting quarterback? I'm sure the Browns will have someone be the starting quarterback.

Guess who else can copy-paste from the other forum:

So you can just lie now, making up racial hate where it doesn't exist AND crimes that weren't committed, to merely twist the narrative to your NARROW widely-unsupported view because you want to back a very convincing example of a sexual predator? And you go so low as to say it's a white-black thing when the white guys are getting drug through the same type of mud as the black guy? Yet the mounting evidence is overwhelming against the one you support, and pretty much doesn't exist against the others that you disparaged. Well, that doesn't sound very reasonable, rational, logical, fair, or decent of YOU, does it? And Vers, get bent w/your hypocrisy. AND LIES.

Some guys defend DW so methodically hard that you have to ask yourself if maybe they had many massage therapists too. Hmm?

Like FrankZ said, "we aren't allowed to speculate?" (the way it read, not verbatim) Well, I say yes, speculate away! Why is one poster taking all others to task in defense of a guy now accused of sexual misconduct in 26 different cases? What part of off-field Watson motivates this poster to stand so hard against so many? Speculate away.

This is how your hate and lies affect me, and I'm compelled to call them out. Of course, you will call me names and have a fit, but you won't answer honestly in public; exactly why is defending DW this important to you?

So it has been reported that if it is more than 6-8 games ....the NFLPA is going to attack and attack hard. This is a HUGE problem for the NFL. Because the NFLPA "will" be using all the things I mentioned before in an attack on the NFL...The owners (Kraft, Jones, Snyder) and that is the NFL's worst nightmare because all of the information from those investigations are going to come out. The NFL is obsessed with keeping things within the protection of "the Shield". And the last thing they want is to be forced to give up any and all investigation information...This will tie in with Gruden's lawsuit as he was the only person punished in an investigation on another entity. I wouldn't be surprised if they also use a racial argument as well considering the Brian Flores situation....

I think Vers has a point that the Defense is holding tight...going public doesn't help them. The plaintiffs are the only ones that gain in the court of public opinion. That is why Buzbee is playing that card...and timing his additional suits and defendants at just the right time to when it can hit the hardest in the public arena...He will keep stringing things along to keep the story active and keep pressure on Watson and his team. He may be the biggest sleezeball in Texas...but he does know how to do his job.

One thing is for sure tho....

Things are about to get UGLY for the NFL.

You don't bite the hand that feeds you.

The NLFPA knows that they're on very thin ice if they start to involve NFL owners without any legal evidence and only pure speculation. It can fast get ugly in the opposite direction if the players (NLFPA) push the wrong buttons. Secondly, why battle against a lost case? The media and the public opinion will never tolerate anything less than a one year suspension and the big hurdle for the NFLPA is that there is no gain for their members if they lose the support of the general public. There're better fishes to fry than questioning 26 women and attacking mega rich owners who btw pays the players salaries.

I am only relaying what I have seen...The NFLPA is backing DW if this is an "unprecedented" suspension...and they are going to use the Owners clause of the Code of Conduct policy to do it.

Bite the hand that feeds you???? really?????..why do you think there is an NFLPA in the first place...to protect the players from what they consider unfair treatment...

The NFLPA isn't on thin ice at all and actually have the NFL by the short and curly's...because the NFL will have to disclose the information on their investigations with those owners...And the Owners are supposed to be held to a higher standard according to the Code of Conduct policy...

This has nothing to do with public opinion...in some ways it isn't about Watson....It is more to do with preventing possible railroading of future players. Because they have LONG felt that the Policy has not been enforced fairly.

Maybe we should have hung on to Tretter.

Yeah Pete, the NFLPA and Watson's defense team need to go all-in on the discrepancy of how the NFL treats alleged misconduct of the owners and players. I have been saying that for awhile now. The more negative attention that the NFLPA and Watson's team draw towards the NFL's unfair and uneven treatment of the owners and the players, the better. I would demand full disclosure in all of these cases. Let's go public since Watson's case has been tried in the court of public opinion. What's fair for one is fair for all.

And regarding some of the above posts that deal w/board personalities rather than the topic at hand......I don't know, but it seems all the insults, name calling, and hostility on these threads is coming from one side and not the other.

Pete - the NFLPA should defend hard. That's their remit. Using Kraft or other guys caught in scandals might work. But for all the crying about court of law and innocent until proven guilty from people defending Watson - there are a lack of facts in those cases that would possibly paint a hard road for the NFLPA to categorically site them and use, and none of them went to civil trial, none had 26 cases pending against them. And personally I find it entirely illogical to defend Watson by insisting we discard the substantial amount of "Circumstantial" evidence and testimony - and then point to Kraft and Synder and rely on hearsay and circumstantial evidence to say -"well those guys are guilty and got off light".... Going on a fishing expedition in the hopes of finding dirt inside the NFL dealings with those owner cases? I doubt that's legal or ethical.

The problem with the DW situation - as you and others have just said, the allegations are unprecedented. There are facts known about the situation and communications, therapists crying, spa managers paid off "just because", the shear numbers of randoms used by a pro athlete. As you say - it is messy and will get messier. Snyder's toxic work environment I don't doubt. Kraft paying for happy endings I don't doubt. Beyond that idk - I didn't read up on either case substantially. Trying to equate it to what DW is accused of doesn't seem equal or applicable.

As for the defense holding tight? I don't know what they do or don't have. Rusty sure wasn't holding tight and as done a bunch of public defending including his claim that happy endings aren't necessarily illegal .... a comment I don't think did him any favors. I've said before - I can sure hope they have a get out of jail free card/play stashed away - I'd love for the QB of the Browns not to have any stink on him. But hoping doesn't mean probable.

The Browns might have allowed the Texas/Harris county legal process to over influence their decision to pursue Watson, thinking that the lack of a criminal indictment meant that Watson was innocent of all the charges. Reading the article below calls into question the Browns decision throw caution to the wind without considering the possibility that the rulings in Texas do not necessarily exonerate Watson.

Harris County district attorney: Lack of indictment by grand jury was not an exoneration of Deshaun Watson

Posted by Mike Florio on June 19, 2022, 9:15 AM EDT
link

Some, including attorney Rusty Hardin, want people to believe that the decision of a pair of Texas grand juries to not indict Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson means that Watson has been exonerated. The top law-enforcement officer in Harris County, Texas disagrees.

At the end of a podcast interview of Kim Ogg, Mike Melster gave her the floor, so that she could say anything about the situation that she’d like to say. Here’s what Ogg said: “We respect our justice process. I love the law. It’s designed to get to the truth. That’s really what people want. I don’t think as a culture we can live with injustice. Remember, a grand jury no bill is not an exoneration. People, even when they clear the criminal justice system, often face accountability and repercussions in other parts of our legal system. And so I think to determine whether justice was done in this case you’re going to have to wait and see how it all comes out on the civil side of things and then through the NFL on the administrative side of things. And then people will determine whether that’s justice.”

That’s always been the case. But once the Harris County grand jury decided not to indict Watson on nine criminal complaints in March, and thanks in part to a tweet that naively linked the absence of an indictment with proof of innocence as part of the broader quid pro quo inherent to the world of breaking transactions five minutes before they are announced, teams launched their pursuit of Watson.

After a weekend of reports regarding this team and that team and some other team being interested in Watson, the Panthers, Falcons, Saints, and Browns officially entered the four-team race. The Browns, after being the first team out, decided to go all in with a five-year, $230 million, fully-guaranteed offer. It worked. The Browns got Watson.

Hooray for the Browns!

The exclamation point quickly became a question mark as reality crept back into the equation. Twenty-two civil lawsuits remained. An NFL investigation continued. The possibility of more lawsuits and more attention and more scrutiny and more people loudly wondering what the Browns were thinking became, within three months, reality.

Ogg’s comments underscore the fact that no one should have gotten swept up in the chase for Watson’s contract, not without a settlement of all existing lawsuits and a commitment by Watson to quickly resolve any other claims that may surface. Say what you will about Dolphins owner Stephen Ross (and we’ll admit we’ve sat plenty), but he had the right idea — all cases must be settled before a trade is made.

The Browns should have done the same thing. But with four teams falling all over themselves to get Watson, the Browns weren’t in a position to dictate terms. None of the four terms were.

Ogg’s comments also reinforce my belief that prosecutor Johna Stallings used the cover of the ridiculously secretive grand jury process to subtly (or otherwise) make it known to the grand jury that, as Ogg said, Watson didn’t have to be indicted to face “accountability and repercussions in other parts of our legal system.” Again, it would have been very difficult to convict Watson with proof beyond a reasonable doubt, especially since he has the money to hire a dream team of defense counsel who would have if-it-doesn’t-fit-you-must-acquit-ted their way to win after win after win in criminal court.

Ogg’s point is that Watson’s reckoning (if any) will happen elsewhere. In civil court and/or in the Court of Roger Goodell. And she’s right.

Hopefully, that will be the final word on this knee-jerk notion that the lack of an indictment means the existence of innocence, from Hardin or anyone else. No indictment most definitely does not mean absolute innocence, and the person ultimately responsible for the presentation of these cases to a grand jury in Houston has said so herself.

j/c:

I want to once again bring up that I have not determined the guilt or innocence of Watson, Kraft, Jones, Irsay, Zeke, and Snyder. The number of allegations against Watson are alarming. The sheer magnitude of all the allegations against Snyder and his team are staggering. Kraft not being suspicious of sex trafficking in a sleazy parlor w/scantily-clad Asian women who could not speak English is hard to believe. Etc, etc. But, my argument isn't about the supposed guilt or innocence of each party.

Instead, it is about fair and equitable decisions made by the NFL. We have been told over and over that the NFL doesn't need a guilty verdict to punish a player. We have been told that they can do so if the league's image is tarnished. That has been--and continues to be--my focus. I wanted to post the entire document, but I doubt anyone would read it through its entirety and might skip it altogether given its length. Here are a couple of paragraphs at the beginning of the document.



While all of the cases of the individuals vary, one should surmise that all have brought “conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in” the NFL. Thus, why should a cavernous divide in handing out discipline exist? That is extremely important to recognize and it is why I have been saying that Watson's defense teams need to vigorously pursue this strategic line of defense. They should demand full disclosure in all of the cases and also include the Flores discriminatory lawsuit. Let us see if the NFL wants to be put on trial for conduct detrimental to the integrity of the league.

Is a one year suspension a unfair treatment when you look at all the allegations in is full context? Honestly.

If he only got that punishment he should celebrate all the way to the bank. The clowns at the Browns rewarded him with a $230m contract, guaranteed money, and that’s before these cases has been presented in front of a jury. As it stands right now we have no idea of the outcome, it could even get way more serious with additional law suits and even new criminal charges.

A suspension until all cases are solved is by far the most fair direction to go for the NFL. Otherwise this can be a PR nightmare that can go on for years. I fully understand those inside the NFL who hold grudges against the Browns incompetent handling of this whole situation.

Secondly. This is a individual case and it should be judged on is own merits. Historically wrong punishments aren’t applicable when making appeal because when should the comparisons end? Go back one year, ten year or 50 years? It’s also almost impossible to compare one case to another when so many circumstances seems to be so different.

Like so many others has said. Whatever it take make a economical settlement with these women and move on.

Rumor has it he doesn't read defenses well and has trouble throwing from the pocket.

From the other thread, but it belongs here as well.

Here is some interesting reading on the Kraft situation: https://www.dawgtalkers.net/ubbthreads.php/topics/1595549/2


Guess who said this?

Quote
It's not about "if he knew". It's about the results of his actions. His money went directly to a human trafficking ring.

And this?

Quote
His money went to a human trafficking ring. He's a celebrity. So his name is out there. Poor Robert Kraft....

If you buy weed and it comes from a Mexican cartel, it's not your fault you're supporting a Mexican cartel. Cause you didn't know where it came from, right?

And guess who said this?


Quote
I'll wait until more facts come out before I issue some huge moral judgement.

And this?


Quote
I don't have all the facts yet and my opinion can change. But, right now, I don't think what Kraft did is a big deal. In fact, I think it's only a big deal because he is such a large public figure.

I do think the issue of trafficking is very serious and is a huge concern in our society. I put it well above illegal immigration on the list of the things we must fix. It's like the dirtiest underside of our global society. It doesn't get any worse than that, especially because minors are often involved. I applaud folks like Hue Jackson who donated time and money to combat the travesty that is human trafficking.

But, as of right now, I don't think Kraft knew that was going on. I think he wanted to get laid and to that...I say big deal. In fact, we had a conversation on here years ago as to why don't people w/money [we were talking about NFL players at the time] just pay for sex instead of risking picking up some strange and then risking that strange accusing them of rape and/or abuse? Most of us don't see a problem w/people wanting to have sex. If you have money, prostitution is probably safer when you want some strange.

Now, if Kraft was aware of the trafficking aspect of this and that is why he went to that place..............my position will change dramatically. Until then, I don't like all the sensationalism.



See for yourselves.


To add: Some are pretty consistent in their views and others swing depending on which way the wind blows.

I think we need a Robert Kraft thread. People can deflect all they want and accuse him and his case as being sex trafficking all they want.

Ummm, no. I never told anyone they could not speculate. I speak for my view. I do think Watson should not be punished until it is proven he actually did things that were wrong, sorry but I would expect that for anyone. People's lives get ruined over accusations that turn out to be false. Personally I will wait for this to play out before I start calling Watson a "predator" or anything else.

I am not making any judgments concerning the NFLPA. Again I am just relaying what I heard and saw...I am not saying it is good nor am I saying it is bad. it is simply...this is what is going to happen (based on reports) IF DW gets a long suspension...I am not saying a year is too long...I am not saying it is too short.

Heck the NFLPA defense was posted by Florio among others...why didn't mac post it (or did he...I sometimes have to skim past stuff)

Whether you agree with them doing it or not...whether you think they have a case or not....They are going to "vigorously" defend him IF the suspension is "unprecedented" as has been stated. It is just a statement...no opinion or judgement from me...(aside from the fact it is going to get ugly for the NFL)

I think that the Kraft issues and those of the other owners when it comes to determining Watson's punishment are absolutely relevant to this discussion. And I could care less if guys like 888, Fate, Pit, Lex, OCD don't want to hear alternative opinions. It's a message board and those guys can't dictate what others say no matter how hard they try.

Being open minded is frowned upon by those who want Watson suspended.

.

Just please post it... over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over.

Eventually everyone will buy-in.

Actually, it's you guys who keep posting it over and over again that he should be suspended and we all should agree. Btw.........thanks for the head's up on the Kraft thread. I kept seeing how you were looking at it and you never once posted a reply about it on the legal thread, so I became curious. Low and behold, you did not find what you were looking for, but I sure as hell did. Stuff it where the sun doesn't shine, Fate.

Things are about to get very personal again and I acknowledge my role in that. However, I do believe the information on Kraft, Jones, Snyder, Zeke, Irsay, Flores is relevant here. I think those cases are related to Watson's. No, they are not "equivalent." However, once again, it goes back to the personal conduct policy.

I will state once again that I am not assigning guilt to any of the above. Nor am I saying any of them are innocent and that includes Watson.

What I am saying is that if the NFL is relying on their Personal Conduct Policy, than they should be consistent w/their punishments. Some should not walk free because they are white owners and some should not be punished because they are black paid employees. The document reads that all should be included. I provided proof of that. It's their words, not mine.

Again, Watson's defense team should demand full disclosure of all these cases and take it to the courts. I guarantee you that the NFL doesn't want all that to come out. I am in direct conflict w/those who wish for Watson to be suspended. And I could care less if y'all like it or not.

I have no issue with paid leave. But he shouldn't see the field until this is resolved. That would be rewarding him while he is under the self-inflicted cloud. NOPE. But he shouldn't have his livelihood taken until we know what's what. And every day it gets harder and harder to believe he is innocent.

Thats some extreme Confession through Projection. Shine on you Crazy Diamond.

I love hearing your opinions Vers, I just don't like the petty attacks when things aren't just how you think they should be. You cut that crap out and we will be fine, on my end. On 99% of topics, I like hearing your opinions. But you don't have to go so hard at guys just contributing to the convo man. That's all.

And I don't care if you take somebody to task for attacking you first, that's all fair. And you know I would damn sure return fire.

Now, this is a fair and reasonable statement, and I concur. But in the opposite direction, the mishandling of those cases should not somehow let DW off the hook, especially if he is guilty. Paid leave is fair. I even think a suspension at this point is uncalled for if it's based on his actions because nothing is proven. Heck if this was 1 or 2 cases, we could just put them on the back burner until it played out. But at some point, the NFL and the NFLPA need to put the league first in protecting its rep and the greater good. Not to mention that allowing him to play, or even sign his new contract is tantamount to rewarding bad behavior in the eyes of his victims and those that sympathize with them. And I would feel terrible about this if there weren't SO MANY WOMEN. You can't just ignore that.

You were stalking me looking at the Kraft thread from eons ago?!

I need a shower. You are WHACK.

And I did find what I was looking for, just didn't want to hurt your little feelings by posting it here, but since you want to spar for a bit...


Says it all. Spin all you want. Kraft having sex with to women who were not human contraband, has nothing to do with sex trafficking -- and even less to do with Watson being a freaking pervert. And even waaay less to do with blacks, whites and racism. Funny how you can jump ship from everything you preach about (ad nauseam) and become a dichotomy of yourself, a contradiction with a megaphone, for some silly rant over what's fair and not fair.

Watson spent 1.5 years trying to bang every woman he can get his hands on, he did it from a position of power, behind closed doors, under the guise of "massage". He saw them throw him out, he watched them cry, he heard others tell him he better calm down before sh*t gets out of hand... he kept it up. Go ahead and take your "unfair public verdict" shaming and stick it in your ear. He is GUILTY as charged of being a privileged, cowardly, pig of a pervert... and any punishment he gets from the NFL is probably not equivalent to what any of us would get for 1/10 the offenses.

I think Watson gets suspended for a year... appeals... and it gets knocked down to 8-10 games... he has a couple games to get back into it before returning to Houston...