DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Will Watson play for the Browns this year..?

One other thing real quick. And this is just my personal opinion.

I am not one who is a big punishment type of guy. I think there should be consequences for one's actions. But, to overly punish? No. For example, I never beat my kids when they misbehaved. They had consequences for their actions, but I never thought it was good to go too far w/punishment. Likewise, I can't see taking away a man's livelihood is necessary when he hasn't been found guilty of a crime. Hell, I really don't even think the owners I spoke of should be punished if they haven't been convicted of a crime. The case w/Snyder might change, though. He's in deep w/Congress investigating him.

All of that is just my opinion and I don't expect anyone to agree.

Well now that this topic is settled, and everyone on earth is going to be suspended for the next 10 years, I hope we could get back to some real nonsensical business.
"grave danger?" "is there any other kind?" nonsensical business? yeah.

Drafting the Browns' ' into two groups to see which side ends up better. But in the fashion of, when one side picks a player we take that players position out to the end. For instance, when I pick the Defensive lineman, we draft defensive line until all the DL are selected, and at the end, put our sides up for review.
And for this purposes, DeShaun Watson and Baker Mayfield are both healthy and not suspended,
And being a common draft of 2 sides, I will not take the obvious #1 with the #1, so I'll get things started with the #1 pick on the DL,
Jadeveon Clowney.
then let the board pick one other DL until the DL are used up,
or- pick another position to which I'd have to finish up at that position, be it linebacker, runningback, quarterback, or the like, as long as no more than 2 position groups are currently open.

The NFL needs to punish players in order to deter future players from doing things that will embarrass the league and hurt sales. It really is about the dollars. It should have nothing to do with criminal justice and has everything to do with perception. And that is 100% just fine.
The problem with DW is that what he did (alleged, but almost definitely did) was so creepy and memorable, and he is also a starting QB, so he will always be remembered for it, and by association, his reputation can taint the reputation of the people (team, league) that are associated with him.. I believe that the better he does, the worse it gets for the league, because the more attention he gets, the more the league looks like a home for degenerates and the more customers they lose as they walk away in disgust and choose to not have their kids get into the NFL. It has the potential to have a long term, generational impact on sales as some customers will never come back.
If the league permanently bans DW, then they don't lose a single fan except is family members. If DW plays and becomes the highest paid player in the league, then they will lose many fans permanently.

Did the NBA go out of business because of the Marv Albert scandal? No.
And the NFL will not lose many fans permanently.

.

Report: Deshaun Watson’s disciplinary hearing due to start Tuesday

Posted by Mike Florio on June 25, 2022, 5:30 PM EDT
link



Why bother dumping bad news into a Friday afternoon in late June when it can instead be buried close to five o’clock on a Saturday?

At a time then many were waiting for the NFL to initiate the process of disciplining Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson under the Personal Conduct Policy by proposing a significant suspension that would then be followed by a hearing before an independent (sort of) disciplinary officer, the league has mashed Step One and Step Two together.

According to Adam Schefter of ESPN.com, who hasn’t had much to report about Watson since fueling the false narrative that a grand jury’s decision not to indict Watson on nine criminal complaints somehow amounts to exoneration, the disciplinary hearing of Watson is due to begin on Tuesday.

It’s unclear when Watson and the NFL Players Association became aware of this timetable. If they knew about it before 4:49 p.m. ET on Saturday, they didn’t say anything about it. It creates the impression, right or wrong, that the whole thing is being hastily slapped together.

Retired federal judge Sue L. Robinson will preside over the hearing and issue a decision on discipline, if any, to be imposed on Watson. The league will propose a punishment, at some point. PFT reported nine days ago that the NFLPA expects the league’s proposal to be “unprecedented.”

Also unprecedented is the looming procedure. Adopted in 2020, it has not yet been applied. Apparently, the league doesn’t intend to announce the proposed suspension of Watson before initiating the formal review process before Judge Robinson. It remains to be seen whether someone leaks the proposed suspension to the media.

Per Schefter, a decision could come within a week, or it could be issued when training camp opens. As long as Judge Robinson imposes any discipline on Watson, either side can appeal to Commissioner Roger Goodell, whose ruling would be final. Watson escapes Goodell’s jurisdiction only if Judge Robinson concludes that Watson should not be punished at all.

Attorney Rusty Hardin has tried to argue that there should indeed be no punishment at all, given that no grand jury indicted Watson on criminal charges. That position, as previously explained, is flawed, self-serving, and illogical. Recently, the Harris County District Attorney said in plain terms that the lack of an indictment does not constitute exoneration.

As PFT also reported nine days ago, the NFLPA intends to point to the punishment or lack thereof imposed on owners who may have violated the Personal Conduct Policy, including Commanders owner Daniel Snyder, Patriots owner Robert Kraft, and Cowboys owner Jerry Jones. That defense could cause the hearing to bog down, but the NFLPA and Watson have every right to advance it. With the policy clearly stating that owners are held to a higher standard than players, the punishment or lack thereof imposed on owners who may have broken the rules becomes directly relevant to the propriety of the proposed punishment for Watson.

Whatever happens, it’s going to begin to occur during what usually is the slowest week of the annual NFL news cycle. This year, that definitely won’t be the case.

I'm glad the NFL is seeking indefinite with a minimum of a year. He deserves more than a year IMO, and the Browns FO deserves the L. Rooting against the FO feels horrible, but they made this mess. I don't care about DW he deserves whatever he gets.

At this point Watson and his future is irrelevant. He will get his punishment one way or another.

I’m way way more irritated with the Browns FO, a bunch of clowns with no backbone or moral compass. I want the best for all loyal Browns supporters because they deserve so much more then these genius woodpeckers.

If true, I hope the NFLPA hammers the NFL in a court of law.

That’s probably why the NFL was negotiating a settlement. They don’t want this to get dragged out in court. I think they know they have him for at least a year but Watson wasn’t willing to take that deal.

You usually seem to have a good handle on these things.Do you believe--like I do--that the NFLPA will fight this hard? Do you think that Goodell might deflect attention to Sue Robinson if the punishment is not as stiff as some of our fans and Florio are hoping for in order to stop the NFLPA's hired guns to stop w/the Snyder thing? What do you think the end penalty will be?

bone, I am not sure anyone other than Watson and the women know what took place. I have my ideas, but I will refrain from sharing them. I think that is all about the possible negative PR at this point. And I mean that the NFL can receive negative PR should they let Watson off relatively easy and also the negative publicity if the NFL is put on trial and their dirty deeds over the course of decades become public knowledge.

More on the mechanics of it all.......

Yes. It’s literally their job. If they don’t then what is the point of having a union.


I read this question like ten times and I have no idea what you are getting at.

I will say this, if Watson appeals the appeal is heard by Goodell or a person Goodell appoints.


He’s getting a year at minimum. The year might come later on after Watson sues (like Brady did).

Thanks for answering and sorry for being unclear.

What I was getting at is that I think the NFLPA has a real case. It's undeniable that the NFL has been biased and unfair in their handing out of punishments for Personal Conduct infractions. Snyder's case is crazy. Goodell could blame Sue Robinson for not imposing a stiff penalty in order to keep the NFLPA and Watson's defense team from pursuing legal action agains the NFL.

Sue Robinson was hired jointly by the NFL and the NFLPA so neither side has a leg to stand on.

Bringing in a female ex-federal judge is a good thing IMO. Nobody can claim the good ole boys club if he gets off easy, and nobody can cry unfair if he gets slammed. And with a female making the decision, many fans will be accepting of what he gets. I think I will even be satisfied. My biggest issue now is that we will never know what actually happened unless it comes out publically in the remaining cases. And if he gets six months to a year or even indefinite like Gordon got a time or two, I can see the NFL telling him to clear it all up before reinstatement. I'd just like to find out he's not a preditor, or see proof that he is, so I can feel good about how I handle my Browns fandom going forward. That's what I was holding out hope for because I would like to enjoy his on-field talent without the rapey stigma we currently have. Or if we know for sure he IS a preditor, I can decide what I think I should do without just throwing 50 years of being a fan away.

Report: NFL seeks indefinite suspension of Deshaun Watson, lasting at least one year


Posted by Mike Florio on June 25, 2022, 6:39 PM EDT
link

A slow Saturday on the NFL calendar has picked up considerably.

With the NFL knowing that coverage of all things Deshaun Watson is unavoidable, the league steered the emergence of reports into a window where they could be less noticed.

And here we are. At 6:05 p.m. ET, the Wall Street Journal posted an item from Andrew Beaton that contains this extremely noteworthy nugget. The league “is pushing for an indefinite suspension that would last no shorter than one year for Watson.”

Watson and the NFL Players Association, which has a duty under federal law to defend Watson and all members of the union, will fight it. As PFT has reported, one of the tacks they will take is to argue that the proposed punishment does not mesh with discipline or lack thereof for multiple owners who allegedly have run afoul of the Personal Conduct Policy. Beaton’s article confirms this specific report.

By pushing for an indefinite suspension, the league would be protected against the possibility that more women will sue Watson between now and the middle of March 2023, when all relevant two-year statutes of limitations will expire — assuming that Watson ceased the practice of securing private massages through social-media after the first lawsuit was filed in March 2021.

The league’s case, per Beaton, will focus on five of the women who have sued Watson. Those cases have corroboration from text messages and other evidence. “League officials believe those allegations in particular are objectively provable and establish a clear and disturbing pattern of behavior from Watson,” Beaton writes.

Multiple reports have pegged the commencement of the hearing before Judge Sue L. Robinson for Tuesday, June 28. It’s unclear how long the process will take. An effort by the NFLPA to defend Watson based on the actions, and consequences, of owners like Daniel Snyder, Robert Kraft, and Jerry Jones will necessarily delay the process. Nevertheless, Watson has an absolute right to argue that his punishment should be commensurate with other cases.

Along the way, the NFLPA could uncover some evidence that would be of particular interest to the U.S. House Committee on Oversight & Reform, which is trying to get full access to the investigation conducted by attorney Beth Wilkinson regarding the Commanders and owner Daniel Snyder. It’s impossible to know whether Snyder’s punishment properly fit the misconduct without knowing the full scope of the misconduct.

Cool. That is your opinion. I think the Browns dug as deeply as they could, and fully factored in a suspension, even to the point of it being a full season.

I agree. All along I was thinking maybe 10 games being a pretty solid bottom line. As this continues, a full season might be the outcome. I also think the Browns even weighed in a full season as being the possibility they might face.

What I am saying is I don't think the Browns had some set numbers where getting X numbers of games suspension was acceptable and anything over would eliminate us from making the trade. I think they just said what is the worst, and a year was the worst case for them.

Now if the NFL is pushing for 2-3 years, that changes things.

That is what I said earlier. Indefinite sounds bad, and usually does indicate lengthy, but indefinite could mean 2 games.

Indefinite suspension that last no longer than a year. Kinda defeats the purpose of indefinite.

8 games max. 6 on appeal.

I'll be surprised if the initial ruling is less than a year. Then maybe reduced on appeal. People will want to save face and at least make it look like they did something.

You might not like my answer but Watson should get less than Brady.

Bradys was a game violation. Cheating if you want to use that term. To me that is what the NFL should be dealing with, not being involved in personal conduct before anything has been finalized on such conduct. Especially in cases that are civil in nature.

Here is a what if that I think is relevant to my point. What if Watson, or any other plyer was in a nasty divorce much like the recent Johnny Depp trial? A situation like that would be as bad for the league as is this case with Watson. Neither actually involves the NFL, only one of the employees.

Would it be right to suspend the player over nasty, public divorce proceedings that went on for months?

Report: Browns To Pay Deshaun Watson $45 Million Even If He's Suspended For The Year

Alek Arend - Yesterday 7:18 PM
link


The Cleveland Browns have infamously made a number of horrendous decisions over the years. Acquiring Deshaun Watson in a blockbuster trade could end up being the worst.

This coming Tuesday, Watson will attend a hearing with the NFL and NFLPA. The expectation is that the NFL will push for a year-long suspension. The NFLPA will fight on Watson's behalf to reduce it.

Regardless of the suspension outcome, the Browns will reportedly be on the hook to pay Watson $45 million for the 2022 season—even if he's suspended for the entire year.

That's right. The Browns may end up paying Watson $45 million to not play a single snap this upcoming season.

Believe it or not, this was intentional by the Browns. They revised his contract so that in the scenario he's suspended for the year, he doesn't bear the financial burden.

Cleveland's front office's willingness to revise Watson's contract in such a way is probably a big reason Watson chose the Browns over other options.

Regardless, it's pretty ridiculous Watson could still make $45 million for the 2022 season even if he's suspended.

We've known that since the day he signed the contract.

.

j/c

I think the NFL takes the easy way out and suspends DW "indefinitely" until all known cases are resolved/settled. We can claim/hope the NFLPA can use owner-punishments as a guide or negotiating tool and all the NFL has to say is that they cannot "rule" on DW until all the facts are known. That puts the ball back in DW's and/or Buzbee's court. The NFL can THEN rule on owner-punishment without the context of comparing those to DW's suspension. By the time the remaining cases are settled, the owner-punishment(s) will be 'old news' and considered not similar.

I guess this guy's numbers are somewhat correct, but it's misleading.

Technically, Watson's actually base salary is $1,035,000 for 2022.

His base salary jumps to $46,000,000 for 2023, 2024, 2025, and 2026.

Watson's signing bonus was/is: $44,965,000. I believe that $8.9 million is to be paid this year.

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cleveland-browns/deshaun-watson-21753/


--------------------

Alek Arend's article seems like another cheap shot against the Browns which some of our fans are happy to share.

FWIW: Some people have actually criticized the Browns for structuring Watson's base salary this way because they say it protects the Browns should Watson face a suspension. I believe that Berry has said that is a common practice for the Browns when structuring contracts.


https://www.cleveland.com/browns/20...rtainly-understand-the-optics-of-it.html

Duplicate

Clean Up On Aisle 5 !!

The Deflate Gate and Brady and his defense of himself is an interesting comparison. It was proven that cold weather can deflate the balls as much as the pressure drop witnessed in the games Deflategate was centered around. I've read numerous articles stating that deflategate was BS. Certainly the Patriots and Brady were relentless in trying to clear his name - sort of what I was going to expect from DW after his initial presser. In re-reading one or two articles - the NFL' policy and the way it is written was key in the ban. It said something to the effect that if it was probable that something happened - then it could be punished/treated like it did 100% happen. I don't know if the same sort of stipulation and wording is in the conduct policy somewhere? But that'd be pretty big and bad news for Watson.

As for Sue Robinson and the investigator - even with her apparently blemished history on Zeke - it's my understanding both of them were agreed upon by the NFL and the NFLPA. So all the talk about how the investigator can't be trusted or is going to provide questionable feedback -- the NFLPA signed off on her. It doesn't seem to make sense based on the claims about her alleged mishandling of the Zeke case. Why would the NFLPA agree for her to be involved with anything if even a little of what was suggested was true? Maybe we only know one set of facts? idk. But both of them were "approved" by the NFLPA.

Peen - I personally do not believe that deflating balls (if Brady was guilty of such) deserves a worse punishment than sexual assault/coercion (if Watson is guilty of that). Not even close.

These articles inexplicably leave out the draft capital already PAID plus the draft capital that will follow...for a guy not likely to play in his first year here. Go here: https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cleveland-browns/contracts/ and sort by the "Expires" column...look at the guys whose deals expire after '22...and remember that we don't have a #1 pick until TWO more drafts have passed. What a colossal waste of opportunity.

Someone(s) is going to lose a job over what - I believe - Jimmy created. I feel bad for AB - who I really like - but he's going to get tied to this disaster for the rest of his career. JMO

Absolutely correct.... and, it is BECAUSE OF the Union.
This is part of the collectively bargained agreement between Labor and Management. It's not just some arbitrary thing that happens and everyone just looks the other way.
It is part of the disciplinary capacity that is built-in that allows the league to hold Labor accountable for off-field behavior to protect the image and brand of the NFL. The NFLPA agreed to it.
This is how it works. There is nothing improper or nefarious or unfair about it in any way.