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

NFL Suspending Watson A Full Season Causes Unintended Positives For Browns

Evan Crowell - 1h ago
link



Neither Deshaun Watson nor the Cleveland Browns want him to be out a full season, but it does have a benefit to the organization should it occur.

While, in theory, a season-long suspension for quarterback Deshaun Watson seems practical, the NFL likely doesn't want that to happen. If Watson cannot accrue an entire season in 2022, the Browns would likely become heavy Super Bowl favorites in 2023 and beyond.

Yes, Watson may have committed deplorable acts. If he committed those actions, he should be punished accordingly. However, Watson is a talented football player, and once teams knew he wouldn't face criminal charges, it was inevitable that he would play again.

Furthermore, the NFL may not have the jurisdiction to enforce an unprecedented suspension. Several owners around the league have been subject to sexual misconduct allegations, including Dan Synder, who is currently under investigation.

The NFLPA could take the league to court if they deem that Watson's punishment is disproportionate to the discipline levied on owners. In that case, a judge may reduce Watson's suspension, causing a chain reaction of awful PR for the league office.

Those reasons make a season-long suspension unlikely, but it is in their best interest for Watson to accrue an entire season of playing service even if they ignore them.

Watson must participate in six contests in a given season to accrue an entire season on his contract. Unless the NFL finds a loophole to ensure that he would miss the whole year while earning a season towards his contract, the Browns would be able to get an entire season of Watson in 2023 for just $1 million in base salary.

The team would then use the copious amounts of rollover cap they have saved to bring in premier talent from free agency. They would have around $80 million in cap space while having some of football's best players under contract long-term.

For example, the Buffalo Bills brought in edge rusher Von Miller to help them contend for Super Bowls in the short term. Cleveland would be able to make several of those signings if Watson misses the entire year, making an already talented roster that much more competitive.

The worst-case scenario for Cleveland is an eleven-game suspension. That would minimize Watson's impact on the field while ensuring they cannot maximize the first-year base salary in the future.

On Thursday, CBS Sports' Josina Anderson reported that there was a roadblock in suspension negotiations between the league office, the NFLPA, and Watson's representation. The three parties reportedly had a dispute regarding the length of a suspension, and it's unclear when a verdict will be reached.

The NFL must be careful in these proceedings. They want to level enough discipline to save face with the general public but can't afford to have this situation go before a court.

The league wants this situation to be resolved so people can move forward. That's why they only gave the Browns two primetime games this year; they want Watson out of sight and out of mind. However, until they levy discipline, the national media will continue to cover the story daily.

Watson and the NFLPA may prefer for proceedings to go before a judge. They are reportedly building a solid case underscoring the hypocrisy the league office has shown in their dealings with Synder, Robert Kraft, Jerry Jones, and more.

They also likely want to know the length of a suspension, but if it is too harsh for their liking, they are more incentivized to hold out of negotiations. There are many moving parts to this equation, and things seem to get more complex with each passing day.

Whether the NFL or Watson's team was unsatisfied with the length remains unclear. July 1 always seemed to be the target date for suspension news, but as more new wrinkles unfold, that may not be the case.

There is if/when you consider the "union" is not on the side of the players. Unions want the appearance of being for the players behalf but in reality they are just a side organization, aside of the management/ownership, and their overall goal is continuation of the status quo, not acting on the players behalfs. Right. That's why they really exist right?

Unions exist for the rulers to have a way to shut up the masses, by telling the masses, that the masses have had their problems addressed.
Therefore the rulers created the unions, so the rulers would have an easier time of things
even while giving an appearance that they have a tougher time of things, because of those nasty unions.

j/c:

For the sake of accuracy. Sue Robinson was recently hired by the NFL and NFLPA. I posted numerous articles about it. The Watson case is her first case. She seems to be a fair and impartial choice.

Lisa Friel is the one who handled the Ezekiel Elliot case. She was APPOINTED by Roger Goodell. Kia Roberts was the NFL's lead investigator at the time of the Zeke case. She recommended that Elliot should "serve no suspension." Lisa Friel did not allow Roberts to speak to Goodell and banned her from attending the hearings on the decision to suspend Zeke or not. The NFLPA did file a lawsuit to block Elliot's suspension.


Btw---Lisa Friel is currently the "Senior Vice President and Special Counsel for Investigations of the National Football League."


Those are the facts and I hope that clears up any confusion on the subject.

Everyone knows,
When things are neither improper,
nefarious, or unfair,
that there is no need to Say that those things are not improper, or nefarious, or unfair.

Re-posting this so things stay factual and also to make a couple of comments.

Sue Robinson hire: I think this is good. She doesn't have any blemishes on her record. Having a female at the top is good for Watson should the suspension not be lengthy.

Friel: I think this is bad. She was also accused of "prosecutorial misconduct" for withholding evidence from the defense team in a Manhattan rape case.

The NFLPA: While the NFLPA filed a lawsuit in the Elliot case, they were unsuccessful because Zeke did have to serve the suspension. Thus, I wonder about how effective a lawsuit would be if they file one on behalf of Watson?

Snyder: I think he is the wild card here if Watson is to receive fair treatment. The Personal Conduct policy is for owners and players, as well as other members associated w/the league. The disparity in punishments for violating the PC policy is glaring.

With all that said, I think that Watson is probably screwed and so are the Browns.

This is absolutely correct. My last post and comments about Friel were wrong.

It's okay. There are so many moving parts that it's hard to keep up w/all the information. Hell, I had to revisit 6 articles just to make sure I kept it all straight when I presented it to the board.

Berry has signed nearly all his big contracts with a $1 million base for the first year. It's at least 5 other players. The Watson contract structure is not an anomaly to avoid or help Watson keep his salary - it is standard Berry operating procedure.

As I said, that's not an excuse to not do the right thing moving forward. What you seem to be indicating is that the NFL should continue to do the wrong thing by minimizing the abuse of women rather than change direction and do the right thing based on the mistakes from the past. Why is it you take the word of NFPA lawyers yet refused to take the word of Buzzbee? Do you only trust what the lawyers you agree with say?

The contract they signed pretty much says otherwise.

God knows people really thinks the outcome of some football games means more than the abuse of multiple women. Sometimes I wonder if I still live on planet earth. And you compared the abuse of multiple women to a nasty divorce proceeding? Oh the depths people will stoop to.

I just wanted to point out the part in bold. It seems that in some cases people decide that accusations without physical evidence or a conviction mean nothing. Even when there's 24 such accusations.... and counting. Then all of a sudden when it supports their agenda it does mean something. It seems odd yet obvious the way that seems to work.

You never know. What if the judge doesn't have any guidelines and determines 2 years is appropriate?

And that seems to be entirely correct. However that doesn't change the fact that watson will not be burdened with a stiff financial penalty considering the total of his contract regardless of the intent. Considering the Browns knew he may be facing a lengthy suspension in 2022, or if they didn't they are fools, the optics certainly aren't good.

That's a fair and valid point - one I hadn't thought about. Certainly when you google - there is a lot of noise about what Friel is accused of. We have a lot of posters that defend DW based on nothing being proven despite quite a dearth of testimony and facts that appear to be incriminating. It has to cut both ways - good catch.

So, yes and no to your questions.
Employers and the groups that they are involved with do not owe you due process. If the presence of DW is bad for the NFL, then they should prevent him from being on the field.
In a sane world, all of the owners and GMs should have the sense to know that you don't extend a contract offer to someone with 20+ sexual assault accusations. I cannot imagine that happening in any other business where nobody would ever offer you a contract if you had this sort of dark cloud hanging over you. The Haslams and Berry apparently lack any business sense. I have seen multiple media personalities already call this the worst contract offer ever offered by any sports franchise.

Now that the contract has been signed, they cannot just void it. They are going to have to pay him a lot of money. But the NFL should still never let him see the field. There is too much bad publicity and risk in doing so.

Unions are good for protecting employees, but in a case like this where DW can hurt the entire leagues reputation and he can even have a negative impact on the earnings of all players, I don't think the Union is going to go to the mat for him. If they do, then they are as clueless as the Haslams.

It's amazing to me that a couple of posters will quote another poster and then totally misinterpret the meaning of the original post. It happens time after time after time and it's always the same couple of posters who are guilty of it. I have tried to post articles and facts that promote learning and discussion and instead, we get baseless accusations that create friction.

LOL, you are more guilty than any other poster. You pick and choose what facts you want to push and ignore or discount facts that go against your argument. You certainly do it with any player you evaluate. If you like said player, it can be expected that no deficiencies that player may possess ever meets the keyboard of any of your posts. Likewise with a player you don't like, you will spend months pointing out every deficiency you can muster even if it's questionable and of course, never see any positives the player may have exhibited.

For a guy that touts himself as somewhat an expert with connections no one else has, your evaluations lack any real substance because they are always one sided. No player is perfect, posting articles to prove your point but ignoring those that discount them only solidifies the fact that almost all of your posts are bias and only contain half-truths. That is the exact reason you are questioned constantly in this forum. Fair and balanced would go a long way in making some of your arguments valid. Doubt if we will see that though.......

Color me not surprised by this post. But, let's get this straight. I do NOT quote people and purposely misinterpret their words. I would never sink to such a low level. However, because you agree w/a couple of posters on Watson and Baker, you are willing to overlook how they are guilty of that on a daily basis. But congrats steve, you got in another rip on me.

For the record, I was speaking about the roles that certain people played in the NFL. Sue Robinson, Friel, the NFLPA, etc. The interpretation of my comments was so far off base from my intent that it's beyond ludicrous. But, it's okay.......because they are trashing Watson.

No never, except every day. We have receipts! smh.

Your comments about "Re-posting this so things stay factual and also to make a couple of comments" has nothing to do with the roles of the people in the NFL. It was an opinionated post pointing out events without posting the actual factual content. The exact same thing that you have posted on this forum a thousand times about how unfair it is with what is happening to Watson with just accusations is the "EXACT" same thing you are doing to Friel. Unlike with Watson, Friel was sued for 175 million for the accusations against her and won her case in court. The attempts to overturn the misconduct convictions on the basis of concealing evidence ultimately failed, as appeals courts ruled the footage was immaterial and "HASN'T" illustrated prosecutorial misconduct. How convenient of you to leave out of your post that she was vindicated of the alleged misconduct levied against her. As far as Elliott goes, the league denies the NFLPA’s allegations and says all of the evidence, including Roberts’ analysis, made it into the hands of the decision maker, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell. The NFLPA lost on the appeal of Elliot's suspension due to these facts omitted by you. Just because the NFLPA or the lawyers in NY make the accusations doesn't make them true especially when you have a court or an appeal deciding those claims. Watson took the easy way out by settling 20 of his cases out of court, so questions will always remain about his guilt in those cases.

Vers -"For the record, I was speaking about the roles that certain people played in the NFL. Sue Robinson, Friel, the NFLPA, etc. The interpretation of my comments was so far off base from my intent that it's beyond ludicrous. But, it's okay.......because they are trashing Watson."

How hypocritical it is of you to do the exact same thing you are accusing fellow posters of doing on this forum. This is not a misinterpretation of your comments, it is clearly intentional on your part to leave out the most important facts of vindication by the court and the appeal process of the NFL. Again, this is not trashing Watson. Watson is alleged of sexual misconduct with 24 to 26 women and counting. There is nothing remotely close to the number of allegations levied against Watson in the entire history of the NFL. A case like this is where DW actions can hurt the entire leagues reputation. You keep defending Watson based on nothing being proven despite quite a dearth of testimony and facts that appear to be very incriminating. Posting half-truths to serve your agenda because the outcome of some future football games means more to you than the alleged abuse of multiple women is where the true disparity lies. There is nothing in the history of the NFL to use as a precedent compared to the alleged 24-26 sexual misconduct cases against Watson. Your continued effort to draw comparisons and then using half-truths in an attempt to prove your point is glaring. If the reports are true, that the NFL is looking at an indefinite suspension with a minimum of a year then there would appear to be more to the alleged allegations that what you are willing to admit no matter how many half-truths you spread here to sway public opinion.

Communication is not easy - and how good the communication is reliant on the message the receiver hears not what your intent was. With the Obama quote the other day, with this post and with others - you have a number of posters all interpreting your message differently than you say was intended. I think that might be an indication that your points/message are not clear.

What I think some saw here , in an attempt to defend Watson or highlight potential unfairness of a punishment to DW (who you believe can't be judged as he has not be found guilty), you sighted allegations against the investigator who had likewise not been found guilty. I'm not convinced the articles promote facts and promote learning - as Steve just posted, these articles seem to support your perspective. The allegations and articles are real but they are no more credit worthy or bonafide than the Florio or SI or Athletic articles that routinely chastise Watson and call for lengthy bans.

We were having a discussion. It was starting to take shape where there might actually be a sharing of ideas. Pit comes on here and starts the daily fight routine. Twice in a row he twisted my words around. So, we are back to discussing this stupid stuff and fighting. All semblance of a reasonable conversation are gone yet again.

Btw----I politely corrected you. I did not quote you. I did not respond to your post. I even said something about it's okay that you had some facts wrong by saying it was hard to keep all that information straight. Isn't that a more reasonable and productive way to handle things than twisting another's words so it leads to a fight?

I'm telling you that this constant bickering is exactly the reason why so many guys quit posting here and others barely show up. Why does everything have to be a contest? Why can't we just exchange takes and try to have civil conversations? There is nothing wrong w/one not wanting Watson on the team and there is nothing wrong w/wanting him on the team.

But whatever........we're back to not talking about the subject matter and once again talking about individual posters.

However did the discussion get sidetracked??

Watson has not been convicted of a crime. The allegations are serious, but I am not a fan of fascism, oppression, or witch hunts. There are some Americans who still believe in our legal system and that all men should be treated fairly and receive equal treatment.

.

My reply to mac was because posters like him are pretending that Watson has been convicted of a crime. He hasn't. He hasn't even been charged w/one. I believe in the laws of our land and I don't like when folks try to take away our freedoms that we are born with in this great country. Every man is entitled to be treated fairly and equally. Fascists don't care about those freedoms. Those who oppress free speech are going against the law of the land. Those who feel they convict others in the court of public opinion are indeed on a witch hunt. I don't care how outnumbered I am, I will speak up for the rights that our forefathers provided us.

As a Browns fan I blame the Front Office, not Watson. Watson's issue only became a Browns issue because of the Front Office. Yes, Watson is responsible for his own actions but the Browns management is responsible for it impacting the team.

vers...are you a fan of the legal process..?


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.


Hopefully this ends the argument that since Watson was not charged by a grand jury of a criminal offense...that he is innocent and is being "unjustly charged" in civil court.

Harris County (Texas) District Attorney Kim 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.”

Amen. I don't know how so many people struggle with this concept.

Agreed, if Jimmy didn't push he wouldn't be here. We wouldn't be dealing with this. We would have a better QB playing this year.