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

vers...the first team of those 13 to be kicked to curb by Watson was Haslam's Cleveland Browns.

The Cleveland Browns were "dead last" on Watson's list of the 13 teams that 'you claim' wanted Watson to play for them.

Watson doesn't want to play for for the Cleveland Browns...but he does want to play for Haslam's MONEY.

Of course he wants to play for the money, he is a PROFESSIONAL player. That's what they do.

When you have talent people pay for it, more talent more money.

It's now being reported that there are more than 30 women that accuse Watson of sexual misconduct per the lawsuit filed today against the Texans. 20 have settled with 4 still unsettled but appears that there may be more coming in the very near future.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nf...mp;cvid=723db1410a854f76a3cffea7a34386f7

Come on. Really? This isn't going to go away anytime soon.

No, this is objectively the stupidest move in the history of sports. Every day that goes by the stupidity is made clearer. This story has wicked, deep, ugly roots that will take down Watson, the browns, and the Texans.

Watson wont play again in the NFL, I believe we are only half way into the filth of this story. It will only get worse.

Unfortunately, with 66 women (as reported by the NYTimes) having had massage sessions with Watson over a little more than a year period, I wouldn't be surprised to see another 10-15 lawsuits coming. If they interview all these women, you can bet that number will climb substantially. I don't see any way the NFL can recommend anything less than an indefinite suspension with a year minimum for Watson with all the additional negative information coming out almost on a weekly basis. Think about it for a moment. What the hell is the NFL going to do if they hand out a 10-game suspension and then 15 more women come forward? The negative look for the NFL would be unprecedented. This is getting uglier by the week. What a great move by the Cleveland Browns!

IMO, the potential of additional lawsuits being filed against Watson in civil or criminal court is a key motivation for the NFL seeking an “indefinite suspension”. As the story below points out the total number of cases that might be filed could climb to 30. The article below is just an update from Mike Florio.

First lawsuit against Texans hints that “at least thirty different women” may have had their rights violated by Deshaun Watson

Posted by Mike Florio on June 27, 2022, 5:09 PM EDT
link


One of the biggest questions regarding the Deshaun Watson situation relates to the vague possibility that the 24 lawsuits filed against Watson will continue to expand. How many claims will there eventually be?

A strong hint appears in the first lawsuit against the Texans as a result of Watson’s behavior.

From page two of the petition filed on Monday: “It is now known that in many of Watson’s multiple massage interactions, more than massage therapy occurred — indeed, with at least thirty different women, the ‘more’ that occurred included unwanted sexual advances and outright sexual assault by Watson. Each of those thirty plus women, most of which are complete strangers to one another, experienced strikingly similar conduct from Watson.”

Twenty-four have been filed, 20 have been settled. More quite possibly will be filed. The league’s proposed suspension of Watson, an indefinite ban lasting at least one year, is aimed at factoring the possibility of more lawsuits into the final decisions made in the case.

Based on the lawsuit filed on Monday, at least six more lawsuits against Watson are possible.

He's done for the year if not longer.

I expect the initial ruling to be a minimum of a year, labeled as indefinite. The NFLPA showed its cards too soon. If the owners have to fight/negotiate, they should start at the ridiculous and negotiate to acceptable. Browns screwed the pooch.

How stupid can an organization be????????????? We set new lows daily.

Hell, I wish we were rolling with Baker or Jimmy G. this year instead of dealing with this sexual deviant.

It's official, NFL is seeking an indefinite suspension of no less than a year for Browns QB Deshaun Watson. The league informed Sue L. Robinson, the former federal judge who serves as the disciplinary officer, Watson and the NFL Players Association of its recommendation Monday evening.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nf...mp;cvid=1ba9ade3965a4d32b60d0157d54285cf

Maybe an oversite in the article or it actually occurred, there was no mention of the Cleveland Browns being notified Monday evening of the NFL's recommendation for the Watson suspension. You would think that the team that is going to be affected by the proposed suspension would surely get a notification.

Since it is now official as to what the league is recommending, it would appear that there is more substance to the alleged sexual misconduct than what has been reported. This is getting uglier by the day for the Browns and Watson.

Where is the link for your claim that the Browns were dead last of the 13 teams? I don't think that is true. I know that the Browns were the first team unofficially eliminated in the Final Four, but 13? I never saw that.

Btw----you asked me for a link about multiple teams being interested in Watson on the Haslam thread. I provided 3 links for you. I asked you for proof of your claims on that same thread and as expected, you disappeared.

It's been reported that the NFL is pushing for a year minimum. That's not breaking news. It's also been reported that the NFLPA did not agree to those terms.

The key is Sue Robinson. She will be presented w/the evidence today. It's been reported that no one knows on how she will rule because this case is unprecedented. The Watson case is the first ever heard by Sue Robinson, the league's first Disciplinary Officer. Thus, no one has any idea on how she will rule. The NFLPA will appeal if they think the suspension is too long. Goodell might change the ruling if he thinks it's too lenient. However, he can not do anything if Robinson says there is no suspension at all. Of course, no one really expects that to occur.

j/c:

I think the 6 game suggestion makes sense. I don't think the sitting out last year argument will fly. Of course, I have no evidence to support either of my opinions.

Sorry - not buying that at all. That sounds like a contrived take.

Watson sat out last season - I don't know if it was considered a suspension or not, but it sure as hell didn't have ANYTHING to do with these sex assault allegations that have come out of the woodwork. Suggesting he can do "time served" for the season he sat out is plain stupid.

JMHO, if Watson only gets a 6-game suspension it will be the biggest anti woman exhibit in the history of sports. The outrage by women (justifiably so), will be unprecendented and go against everything the NFL has tried to establish with recognizing women and set the league back decades. A 6-game suspension would be a slap in the face to the women and a total disregard of what happened to them.

j/c:

This might have already been said here, and hell, maybe I even did but just forgot about it but it seems a little odd the the NFL is so adamant about publicly pushing the year-long/indefinite suspension narrative. I don't recall this ever happening with other cases. The knee-jerk reaction from me thinks it looks like the NFL knows it won't be this type of suspension and needs to make it look like this is what they wanted all along so they don't look bad when something lesser comes down.

The NFL has not only been tight lipped about player discipline in the past and the games suspended until the actual decision was made, but the entire hearing and appeal process would have been kept quiet throughout. This just seems like a very different road the NFL is going down. Maybe it has something to do with this new process and structure when it comes to player discipline but it seems like the NFL is playing the PR game when they normally don't.

We'll see.

Very well could be the spin before the spin. NFL states it wants a year suspension...female ruler on the matter says (6) games...Roger says "Ruling woman is ok with (6) games, who am I to override that?"

Those are good points by you and Memphis.

It's just so hard to predict because this is the first case that has a Disciplinary Officer making the initial ruling. Heck, no one even knows how long it will take her to rule on it once she receives all the information. Dan Graziano did report that Robinson has already received evidence, though.

Also, in response to steve's point of view.......I don't think the allegations against Watson are more egregious than those against others who were not punished severely.

j/c...

How much weight Sue Robinson puts on precedence is going to go a long, long way in determining the length of the suspension. If she values it, the suspension will be much shorter than many hope for. If she doesn't place much value it, the suspension will be longer others hope for.

More than plausible given how highly the NFL prioritizes optics.

What precedent is their for a player owner or coach being accused of sexual assault by 26 different women? I get that owners have been treated to a walk in the park, but that's not precedent. Just how I see it. Holding owners to the same higher standards would seem to be the solution, not enabling and overlooking serious allegations. If we're worried about pūnishing an innocent man then rush through the civ trial before the season.

There is no precedent. She'll actually be setting one.

It's not a "crime" thing.
It has nothing to do with a court of law.

What is the punishment for disturbing sexual behavior perpetrated at breakneck speed for 18 months? After numerous "cues" and warnings that what you were doing was generally falling on a scale between unwelcome and unacceptable?

With Watson being accused of 24 sexual assaults with the strong possibility of 30 plus eventually being filed, it would be a travesty to suspend him for only 6-games. There's a lot a talk about precedent being the defense of the NFLPA. My question is when and where has the NFL ever had a player accused of 24 to 30 plus sexual assaults? Where the hell is the precedent that keeps getting pasted all over this forum? Kraft's instance of alleged use of a prostitute is nowhere close to 30 plus alleged sexual assaults. E. Elliott's alleged assault against his girlfriend resulting is a 6-game suspension is pale in comparison to 30 plus alleged sexual assaults. Even if you truly believe that the owners were given special treatment, the solution is not enabling and downplaying the serious allegations against Watson to "even the score." What kind of message is the NFL sending out to women everywhere if they discount the volume of sexual assault claims if they decide this is the time to give the player an undeserved break because the NFLPA thinks the standards are different? Sweet, that's the way to show the fans that unacceptable player behavior will not be tolerated.

I have a feeling this is all going to end up right back in Goodell's lap. Sue Robinson will issue her decision, Watson will appeal and right back to Goodell it goes. He could appoint a third party to make the final ruling if he chooses.

In terms of precedence, I don't think handling the Kraft situation poorly in 2019 is a good reason to continue handling situations poorly today. Further, I think the NFL could argue that Kraft's offense was before the new CBA in 2020, and that the new code of conduct which employs an independent discipline officer was adopted in part to deal with the conflict of interest involved with having an employee of the owners (Goodell) passing judgement on his employers. As far as Daniel Snyder goes, his case is current and ongoing, so its not available as a precedent setting case as of yet. Besides that, I still don't accept the equivalence between Kraft's behavior and those things that all these women are accusing Watson of doing. Whataboutism isn't the same thing as precedence, IMO.

This article states the insanity of the situation well.

In particular, the browns paid him like a great QB (Brady, Russell, Rodgers, Burrow) QB, rather than a very good QB. Is he even very good still today? This comment from the article is telling:

“With more than 20 allegations against him entering the 2021 season, Watson sat out all 17 games. When the season opens for the Browns against the Panthers on Sept. 11, he won’t have played in an NFL game for 616 days, and if a full-season suspension is presented and upheld upon appeal, it’s possible he won’t have thrown a football against an NFL defense in 980 days upon finally taking the field for the Browns.”


https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/news/browns-deshaun-watson-deal-hearing/ggwjcc8n7u88rrfpcmyx6psc

To your point, I think the Snyder (and to a lesser extent, Jerry Jones) situations are stronger if they are truly going to commit to this argument.

You have an owner that participated and condoned/sustained a toxic culture including many examples of sex assault and lewd behavior. To my knowledge, none would rise to the same level as what we're talking about with Watson, but that is somewhat balanced out with the line about owners being held to a higher standard than people and the fact that the allegations against him suggest he's the root cause of said toxic environment that allowed those things to happen, and that his punishment was a slap on the wrist (Watson would take a $10mil fine yesterday).

I understand that those who want Watson punished will say there is no precedence. However, it's been stated by the NFLPA's hired gun that that will be used as a tool in their defense of Watson. The articles posted have clearly stated that. To deny it is crazy.

Of course, nothing is exactly the same. Who the hell would even argue that? LOL. However, Ben got 4 games [reduced from 6] for allegations of RAPE. Watson is not accused of raping anyone. Snyder has 15 allegations of sexual misconduct taking place in his organization and how he tried to hide that information though intimidating the alleged victims. A. Peterson used a whip that struck his son's private parts while punishing the child. Kaep had a rape allegation that was later dropped outside of court. Farve sexually intimidated a woman. I could go on and on and on.

The fact is that while none of the cases are the same, the NFLPA has ALREADY STATED that precedence has been set and they will use it as a tool in their defense of Watson. Y'all might not like. You might think it is unfair. But, it's happening.

Exactly. Snyder is being investigated by freaking Congress because of the allegations levied against him. How can anyone say that isn't a violation of the Personal Conduct policy unless they just want to see Watson punished severely?

Quit phrasing everything around your #fakenews that everyone that has a different opinion than yours WANTS Deshaun to be punished a certain way.

You sound like you're 12.

That's probably the most likely scenario.

Goodell can't change anything if Robinson says there is no suspension, but that is very unlikely.

The other scenario is that Goodell doesn't want the NFLPA to pursue the discrepancy of how owners are treated for violating the Personal Conduct policy vs how the players are treated and say that Robinson, a female former judge, made the decision and it was out of his hands. It's a possibility.

No.

He also got paid the whole time last season.