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

The NFL is not and can not make any punishment based on cases they have not yet heard. It can only be based on cases known at this time. So to think this will end up as the final solution may be a flawed logic for some to follow. They may not even be able to make a ruling on cases still in litigation for that matter. That makes an indefinite suspension the only logical conclusion.

Looking at Article 46 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, I have to say that the fact that Goodell did not put Watson on the Commissioner's Exempt list is good news for those of us who don't want Watson to be punished severely. I'm thinking the NFL has some real holes in their case, just as Watson's attorneys, the Browns, and the NFLPA have alluded to. "When the facts come out..." probably has real meaning.

Okay mac, whatever you say. LOL

Anyway, here is what i was trying to say to Fate a little bit ago.



This article covers other topics as well as the Watson situation. It's pretty straight forward.

You only believe attorney's who say what you agree with. Funny how that works. Just like watson and his attorney said they would fight all of these cases in court. They were lying to you then. They're lying to you now. But then we have a lot of people who tend to believe people that keep lying to them.


Yeah, this is the bunch I would believe. (Did I need purple for that?)

I believe the NFL could appeal.

j/c

I'm not going to try to understand the process. As someone else said - it seems like there are contradictions or options. I've read different scenarios from different credible sources. Appreciate some of the information and sources posted but I'm done. Hopefully we are close to a resolution.

Due to the unprecedented nature of the allegations and situation - due to this being a new process - due to so many outstanding issues - I am not expecting anything less than a minimum of a 10 game suspension. It would not surprise me if it wasn't a full year. I've no idea if Watson would dispute either of those.

I guess the bright spot might be that we aren't talking about new cases or details - we seem to be on the run in to an outcome.

The decision almost certainly isn't going to be rendered today. Judge Robinson is going to have examine all the evidence from the parties. Some are hoping for July 4th or thereabouts, but most are just hoping she rules before TC starts. But again, this is the first case being tried under the new CBA and no one can make an accurate prediction w/any certainity.

I think it's not all that complicated if you stick to Article 46 of the new CBA. However, I understand that the wording might be boring and [blank] to many people.

the question could become...

will Watson get recommended 26, (1) game penalties because there were up to 26 individual acts?

It doesn't work that way, Super.

According to the Wall Street Journal:

"When the Houston Texans season begins on Sunday, the team’s most important player, quarterback Deshaun Watson, will be absent from the field. The reason involves two unrelated and unresolved events between the end of last season and the beginning of this one, which have combined to place Watson and his team in a stalemate.

One of those matters is a serious off-the-field issue. Watson faces 22 civil lawsuits and a Houston Police Department investigation into alleged sexual misconduct with massage therapists. His attorney has said the allegations are false and that Watson has done nothing wrong.

The other is purely a football issue. Watson, shortly before those accusations emerged, made it known he was done playing for the Texans and wanted to be traded.

The result has stranded Watson and the Texans at an uncomfortable intersection of on- and off-the-field problems. Watson wants to be traded to play for a new franchise. The off-the field allegations muddle his trade value. The Texans want to extract a maximum return for their star player. The result: One of the best quarterbacks in the NFL is sidelined, but not because of an NFL suspension or anything legally preventing him from playing."

The NFL has yet to suspend him and if the Texans so chose, they could insert him into the starting lineup. They just haven't taken that approach as they try to trade him while navigating the accusations levied against him.

That said, Watson isn't suspended and remains on the Texans' 53-man roster. He has been rendered a healthy scratch each week and has often worked out on his own at practice.

It seems like Houston has no plans to play Watson. However, could Watson see action if he's traded? That's a question that teams across the NFL will be asking as the Texans continue to dangle Watson before the NFL trade deadline.

Watson not playing was because he demanded a trade. The trade was held up because of his off the field problems. He was not penalized by the team for his issues. Surely the NFL is aware of this and why they are asking for the length of suspension that they are asking. Watson is in serious trouble and you my friend are grasping at straws.

Which by the way is the exact same thing the Browns are doing to Mayfield.

The Browns big gamble.........

https://www.vsin.com/youmans-browns-big-gamble-on-watson-could-turn-into-historic-bust/

j/c

Robinson hasn’t had a major case to handle yet and I’d be surprised if she ruled for 6-8 games and Goodell brought the hammer down and went above her head. That would be a bad look for the process and bad PR in itself.

With the NFL leaking that they urge a suspension of 6-8 games last night, it tells me that Watson’s case is strong and theirs has holes … but they know that they have to hand out SOMETHING. So they’re hoping Robinson goes with that.

Browns QB Deshaun Watson’s disciplinary hearing adjourned Tuesday evening, set to resume Wednesday and could take another day or two

Updated: Jun. 28, 2022, 8:21 p.m. | Published: Jun. 28, 2022, 6:10 p.m.
link


By Mary Kay Cabot, cleveland.com

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Deshaun Watson’s disciplinary hearing in front of Sue L. Robinson adjourned on Tuesday evening, but will resume Wednesday and could last at least another day or two, a source told cleveland.com.

The hearing in Delaware began Tuesday morning at about 9 a.m. and concluded about by about 5:30 p.m. Watson was represented by his personal attorney Rusty Hardin and the NFL Players Association’s big gun, Jeffrey Kessler.

NFL Network’s Ian Rapoport reported Tuesday evening that barring an unlikely settlement, both the NFL and NFLPA will file briefs in the several days following the end of the hearing, and that it could ultimately take weeks for a final decision.

After a 15-month NFL investigation into accusations by nearly 30 massage therapists of sexual misconduct by Watson during appointments, the league has recommended Watson, 26, be suspended indefinitely without pay for at least a year. He would be the first Browns player to be suspended indefinitely since Myles Garrett missed the final six games of 2019 for removing Mason Rudolph’s helmet and striking him in the head with it during a game. Garrett was reinstated in February of 2020 and played the 2020 season.

The NFL, which interviewed about 11 of Watson’s accusers, based its case on five women whom they believe presented the most compelling evidence of wrongdoing, including text messages that it believes corroborated their allegations. Twenty-four of the accusers filed civil suits, 20 of which Watson settled on Tuesday.

The NFLPA is arguing that Watson shouldn’t be suspended at all or minimally based on the lack of evidence and the fact that all 24 plaintiffs were represented by the same attorney in Tony Buzbee. The NFLPA also cited a lack of equally harsh punishments for three NFL owners involved directly or indirectly in alleged sexual misconduct: Dallas’ Jerry Jones, New England’s Bob Kraft and Washington’s Daniel Snyder.

If Robinson, jointly appointed by the NFL and NFLPA, abides by the league’s recommendation of the indefinite suspension of at least a year, the NFLPA and Watson’s side will appeal, a source said. They have three days to file the appeal in writing to Commissioner Roger Goodell, and any response must be filed in writing within two business days thereafter. Goodell’s word or that of his designee will be final.

The two sides can also reach agreement on discipline at any point during the hearing, but that is not expected. Either side can appeal Robinson’s ruling, and all parties hope for a resolution before the start of training camp July 27.

If the NFL gets the full year it wants, backup quarterback Jacoby Brissett will presumably replace Watson. The Browns also still have Baker Mayfield on their roster, but are trying to trade him before the start of camp. Josh Dobbs is the third-teamer behind Watson and Brissett.

Mayfield, asked at his youth football camp in Oklahoma Tuesday morning if he might replace Watson in the event he’s banned for a year, indicated it’s unlikely.

“I think it’s been pretty obvious the mutual decision on both sides is to move on,’' he said. “No, I think for that to happen, there would have to be some reaching out, but we’re ready to move on, I think, on both sides.”

He said he was ‘thankful for my four years in Cleveland. There’s a lot of ups and downs and a ton of learning experience that I’ll forever keep with me. Teammates and friends and relationships that I’ll have for a lifetime. ... just relationships like that, you’re so thankful for, so the support staff in Cleveland, the people in Cleveland, it’s a great sports town, so I’m thankful for it. There’s no resentment towards the city of Cleveland by any means.’'

Mayfield, who still has a realistic chance of being traded to the Carolina Panthers, admitted he was dismayed a trade didn’t happen a few weeks ago.

“I think I got frustrated with it not happening before like minicamp (June 14-16) and all of those things,’' he said. “But that’s the stuff that’s out of my control, so [I’ll] let those things happen and fall into place.”

When the Browns traded for Watson on March 18, sending six draft picks to the Texans including three first-rounders, they likely expected he’d miss about 6-8 games and still have a chance to lead a Super Bowl-caliber roster to the playoffs.

With the first of two grand juries having declined to indict Watson on criminal charges at that point, they likely believed he wouldn’t be suspended for the year. They continued to build the roster and load up on talent, resigning Jadeveon Clowney, extending the contracts of David Njoku and Denzel Ward and others.

It will be a tremendous blow to the Browns from a football standpoint, but the NFL is determined to come down hard on Watson for what it believes is a disturbing pattern of behavior. Any suspension for Watson will also include the continuation of counseling, which he admitted June 14 at minicamp he’s been undergoing. There will be other terms and conditions he’ll have to meet before being permitted to apply for reinstatement after the season.

Depending on the details of a potential year-long ban, Watson’s contract could roll over to next season, and the Browns could still have him for the full five years of his fully-guaranteed, NFL-record $230 million deal. If he’s ultimately suspended for a finite number of games, he’ll lose only $57,500 per game based on the Browns lowering his 2022 base salary to $1.035 million in a cap-saving move, similar to what they’ve done with Amari Cooper and Denzel Ward.

The NFL is likely seeking the indefinite ban, in part, because more lawsuits could be filed. The open-ended nature of the suspension would provide the opportunity to consider new information as it arises, and for Watson to demonstrate no such accusations will occur in the future.

Despite the addition of two more civil suits since May 31, an HBO interview with two of the accusers and The New York Times article quoting new accusers who haven’t yet filed suits, the Browns remain all in on Watson and have no plans to try to void his contract.

I don't think the NFL would revisit the issue. It would start a new process on the new information you talk about. To me, they would just be dealt with as separate issues.

When a person goes to court and receives sentence, it isn't left open ended with the judge able to add months or years. A new trial would occur to hear the new charges. I would assume this would work much the same way.

As I said in another post, indefinite could mean 2 games, though it usually means a long time. Indefinite could be a way to ban a player from the game without saying so. I don't think the NFL should give a indefinite suspension to anybody. It needs to be finite. If other facts surface, you start the process all over based on those facts. You don't just suspend a person, or jail a person to a indefinite term because you think there might be something else.

If they give a suspension, that is the penalty phase. Once that is rendered, it should be over. Anything new would be treated as new charges that would have to go through the process.

As I said, the rendering of a indefinite suspension could be a way to give a lifetime ban without saying as much. That wouldn't happen and Watson isn't going to get that for non-felonious charges.

The NFL has had players with felony charges and none that I am aware of got a lifetime ban. Who was that DE for maybe the Cards? Little? He got all drunk or drugged up and killed people with his car. Hell, maybe twice, he didn't get banned for life.

j/c:

This goes to a lot of that Vers has been saying. If the NFL decides to add to the suspension above what the arbitrator recommends, the NFLPA will sue, and that will bring up a hornet's nest of bad publicity for the NFL that could drag out for even longer than this.

And the NFLPA will sue, especially since this is the first test of this new set-up. It wouldn't be a good look or good faith gesture by the NFL to go above and beyond what the arbitrator levies. At least by any significant amount.

Now if she comes back and says 2 years, Houston, we have a problem. At least Watson and the NFLPA does. I am not sure what they would do with that.

I have been trying not to reply to you, but how does your article have anything at all to do w/my comment about Article 46 of the CBA?

First, we have to determine if the NFL actually leaked the information about it being "more likely" to accept the 6-8 game suspension. Secondly, Judge Robinson should not let that bit of information influence her decision one way or the other. I researched her and while there is a surprising lack of information available, her record seems very clean. There is nothing in her background like Lisa Friel's that would lead one to question her integrity. I think Judge Robinson will weigh the information presented by the three parties and make a ruling based solely on that rather than how either side will react to her ruling.

I have no idea on how Judge Robinson will rule in regards to Deshaun's suspension, but my instincts tell me that she will be more fair than Goodell and the NFL have been in their prior decisions regarding the Personal Conduct policy.

Vers, you know perfectly well what I was referring too about Article 46 but here it goes:

Originally Posted by Versatile Dog
Did you bother reading the entire document and especially the most relevant part which is Section 4: One Penalty?

That answer is above. You were clearly referencing Section 4: One Penalty which consists of the action allowed if the team had already dealt out punishment. You know that isn't true, never has been true, and is leading people to a false sense of hope. Technically, Watson didn't miss any games for the Texans because of his off the field activities. He was healthy scratch each week due to his demanding a trade and saying he wouldn't play for the Texans again as they tried to trade him. Unfortunately, due to the high compensation sought and the off the field issues, teams were hesitant and like Miami, wanted the off the field stuff settled. There was no penalty against Watson in 2021 and Article 46 Section 4: One Penalty has absolutely nothing to do with the Watson case.

Man, you are out of your mind. I wasn't suggesting that Watson had already been punished. EVERYONE knows that Watson hasn't been punished.

You are combining two separate conversations.




This comment was to mac in regards to the NFL handing out a suspension and then adding more punishment if more information comes out later. There would have to be new charges in order to do that. You can't add time after ruling on the existing cases.





This comment was to 888 about it being hard to understand how hard it was to decipher how the new handling of the NFL deals w/violations of the Personal Conduct policy works.

How you combined those two very separate comments is beyond belief.

Here you go again. Your hypocritical post about Lisa Friel who won the lawsuit against her because the Appellate Court said she did not withhold pertinent information does not still make her still guilty of wrongdoing. Unlike Watson, she has been cleared of any wrongdoing in a court of law accept apparently in your eyes. In the Elliott case, the NFL has clearly stated that they were given the written report from Roberts. In both cases you are taking the word of a disgruntled lawyers of the NFLPA and in Sanders who lost his lawsuit against Friel. For a person who's posted a thousand times about innocent until proven guilty, you are doing the exact same thing to Lisa Friel that you have posted with spite against others who believe that Watson has mistreated these 24 to 30 plus women. Which is it Vers? Or does it just depend on your and yours alone public court on who's guilty and who is not?

You are taking lessons from Pit.

Go ahead and try and shame me because you don't want others to hear what I have to say by implying things that were not my intent. Keep up your quest, but I am not going to respond to your nonsense again.

Dude, you have clearly referenced Article 46 Section 4 as being the most relevant part of Article 46. The section deals with teams dishing out penalties and then not allowing the NFL to come through and dish out another penalty. I didn't post it - you did as the most relevant. Which is it?

Agreed.

And thirdly, we'd have to believe that this is some big psychological chess match for no real reason at all... Goodell is not concerned that she will hand down a sentence of no suspension at all, he can't possibly think that could be true. If he does, he's got bigger problems than a false "rope-a-dope" leak will solve.

In the end, I don't think the NFL cares if he is suspended or not. Suspensions have been more of PR move to promote a "clean, regulated, safe" league. I don't think they care if someone smokes weed, takes steroids, drinks or whatever, the rules are only in place to create a public visual that they are providing a family friendly product.

Lol. I'm glad someone else is in the same space as me on this.


I'm expecting this discipline process (much like everything preceding it) to be an unmitigated cluster^%$@ and drag on way longer than it should.

Like... at all!?

"That's a bold move, Cotton... let's see how it works out for 'em."

The biggest takeaway from this, I think, is that we should have some clarity on this issue by COB Friday, which is a friggin relief at this point, because all of this has become so freaking tiring.

I don't care who you are....that's funny right there!!!!

um? I didn't reference anything. I just asked a question.

I think steve was calling me out yet again. Maybe not? It's getting hard to even figure out what he is saying.