DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Re: Will Watson play for the Browns this year..(continued)

So, several things to unpack here:

Pre-MeToo vs Post-MeToo. Any type of violence against women has come under increased scrutiny and has faced increased punishments after the NFL and other faced so much deserved criticism for not caring about the abuse of women.
Kareem Hunt received an 8 game suspension for pushing and shoving a drunk woman that was harassing him - and he was available as a free agent because most teams wanted nothing to do with him after that.

Rapists vs Sexual Predators. Even though sex is involved in both cases, this is an apples to oranges comparison in my opinion. Serial predators like Watson and Weinstein usually don't rely on brute force for there conquests. They are much more methodical and plan out there conquests. This uniqueness to the situation makes it hard to come up with a fitting punishment. Since his problem could be habitual and is going untreated, they have to consider the risks that he may do this type of thing again and completely embarrass the league. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/.../the-thinking-processes-sexual-predators

Credibility. These crimes are extremely difficult to prove in any case, so the suspension has the consider the credibility of the accusation. In today's world, a proven rape allegation should result in permanent removal from the league. Unproven allegations have to be weighed based on a number of factors, such as the credibility of the accusation, accuser, and accused. This naturally takes into account the number of accusers and any repeated patterns associated with those accusations. The case against Watson is undeniable. It is statistically improbable to the extreme that 25 women out of a pool of 66 would make an accusation like this against a moderately wealthy person. And these are people that he unnecessarily sought out and brought into his life. There is no evidence that they made any attempt to approach him about massage work.

I suppose I get branded as a Baker fan in all this but it couldn't be further from the truth. Yes, I think Baker is being under appreciated by some on this forum and it's unwarranted. The Browns have decided to upgrade the position which with Watson at this time in both of their careers is an upgrade. I think that's a good move by the Browns with the talent they have and the expectation of being better than 2021. I also think what the Browns have done Mayfield wrong. He doesn't deserve to be treated like that by the team or the fans. As far as him asking to be traded, the Browns went out and got a player that did the exact same thing to his team and even sat out a year to prove it.

That said, Watson is damages goods. Anyone who doesn't believe this guy was mistreating women is blind as a bat. I also think this talk about only 5 women are being presented at the hearing as evidence is plain BS. There was 24 women with complaints against Watson. Just because he settles out of court with 20 of the women doesn't make him innocent of what they claimed he did. To think that the Judge is looking past those claims is nothing more than wishful thinking. There have been 24 civil suits against Watson with the strong possibility of 6 or more suits yet to be filed. This saga isn't over by a long shot. It's been reported that 66 women have been involved with Watson which mean there are many more yet that could be heard from.

For me, I'm siding with the women. I am not naive enough not to believe there are situations where stuff like this turns into a money grab. Not 24 women with the potential of more coming is not a money grab. Watson's answers in depositions, NDA's, outside of team facilities, and peers questioning the number and frequency leads me to believe he's as dirty as they come. The number of complaints is unprecedented in the NFL for a player with the possibility of that number increasing likely. To suspend Watson anything less than the full season plus until these suits get settled in court and additional claimants come forward is not only a crap shoot by the NFL, the NFLPA, and the Judge but a sign of disrespect to women's rights everywhere. This is the first case under the new CBA and PCP updated policy. Those changes were made because the process was deemed unfair previously. The NFL and the NFLPA agreed to the new terms to fix said problems. For the NFLPA to now want to say that this happened or that happened previously, and that Watson should get the same treatment now after they screamed and fought for the changes implemented is going against the exact thing they were protesting about.

Like I've said, the absolute worst outcome of this case will be Watson getting his case downplayed to 4, 6, or 8 game suspension and then more suits get filed and he starts losing those suits next spring and summer. Then the NFL, the NFLPA, and the Judge can be hailed as allowing a serial sexual predator to play in the NFL when they had a chance to stop it. What a great look that would be for the NFL and The Cleveland Browns.

Great post!

I think you nailed it. And the Weinstein comparison to the way in which Watson's behaviour mirrors is more appropriate than Ben or Hunt or any of the owner's referenced in multiple posts. That's not to say DW is the same monster Weinstein is - but that manipulation and using power and influence in an unwanted method / coercion is what he is accused of.

I don't know what will happen - none of us do. But the idea that the ex-Federal judge is more likely to be lenient on Watson - I could see some validity to that line of thinking. But I also wonder if that line of thinking is over looking that his is not a court of law, the guidelines she is determining action against are not the same as in a court of law. The NFL is in the entertainment business - it's going to generate and be big splashy news stories in the media. The allegations come on the back of a huge trade and the biggest guaranteed history (by a mile) in NFL history. Kraft's case "went away" but he got the same treatment for a while - it was big splashy news. More so than any other John who got busted going to a seedy massage parlor. It's sort of the nature of the beast. As S003apr said - it's about credibility and there is a good amount of credible testimony and factual information regarding DW's pattern of behavior to suggest he's in violation of the conduct policy. From there - what's the precedent and expectation that the NFL wants to set for future infractions by players, coaches and owners alike?

Here’s a proposed deal to resolve the Deshaun Watson case

Posted by Mike Florio on June 30, 2022, 10:33 AM EDT
link


As the third day of the Deshaun Watson hearing begins, with no information regarding the evidence or the arguments making their way to the media, the process continues toward a decision from Judge Sue L. Robinson. Now or at any time before that happens, the two sides could reach a deal on an agreed punishment.

Efforts previously occurred. They failed, reportedly because the league wanted nothing less than a one-year suspension.


It can still happen. An idea for getting it done appears below.

While recently perusing Article 46 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, I noticed Section 5. Here’s what it says: “Players who are placed by the Commissioner on the Exempt list prior to the determination of discipline and any appeal therefrom under the Personal Conduct Policy will be paid while on the Commissioner Exempt list and credited for the regular and postseason games missed against any suspension ultimately imposed. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement, if such a suspension is ultimately imposed, the player must promptly return and shall have no further right to any salary for the games for which he was paid while on the Commissioner Exempt list that were credited to the suspension (i.e., for a number of games no greater than the length of the suspension).”

In English, this means that a player placed on paid leave who is eventually suspended gets credit for the games missed while on paid leave. He simply has to surrender the money he made while on paid leave.

Technically, Watson wasn’t on paid leave in 2021. The league never had to decide whether to invoke the Commissioner Exempt list, because he was on de facto paid leave; he didn’t want to play for the Texans and the Texans didn’t want him playing. He received $10 million from the Texans to not play.

Now for the idea. The NFL and the NFL Players Association, acting on Watson’s behalf, could agree that 2021 will be treated as a suspension, with Watson losing the $10 million he was paid. Also, he’ll miss eight games to start the 2022 season.

He missed all of 2021. That should count for something. Moreover, this approach would give the league a way to create the impression that it imposed significant punishment on Watson: 25 total games, without pay.

Collecting the $10 million he received in 2021 also would help counter the impression that the Browns structured a deal to minimize the financial consequences of a suspension in 2022, since his base salary is only $1.035 million. Instead, he’d lose a total of $10.46 million in salary. (He also could be required to surrender 8/18ths of his $9 million signing-bonus allocation for 2022; that’s another $4 million gone for good.)

Some would say this makes too much sense to ever happen. It definitely makes sense for the two sides to be trying to come up with ideas for an agreed solution that works for everyone.

Barring a deal, there’s nothing in the CBA that would prevent Judge Robinson from basing a decision on the notion that 2021 should be treated as a suspension after the fact, with Watson losing $10 million and getting credit for 17 games missed.

Although Watson’s absence in 2021 didn’t technically relate to the off-field issues, he surely would have been traded but for the allegations made against him. If he’s willing to give up the $10 million he made in 2021, why shouldn’t 2021 be treated as part of the final punishment?

I think the media would portray this for what it would be - a $10M fine and 8 game suspension. Last year is in no way shape or form part of any punishment DW receives for the allegations against him.

Maybe it's doable - $10M is a drop in the bucket for DW and who knows, the Browns might even find a way to cover that for him. I'd imagine the Brown's are heavily vested in seeing DW on the field as soon as possible.

Why does it feel like Florio has completely changed his tune here?

A hypocritical, opinion-shifting, wannabe analyst focused on clicks more than content?

Nah, I think I got him pegged pretty good.

j/c:

I hope Watson avoids a stiff penalty. I don't feel he should be punished for allegations when a guy like Snyder gets off w/just a fine. I am also not like the Baker fans who have already convicted Watson as guilty of the alleged crimes. I let the legal system handle that and thus far, Watson has not been convicted of a crime. However, I don't think he should get time removed from his suspension because he did not play last year. To the best of my knowledge, he sat out because he no longer wanted to play for Houston. I don't think it had anything to do w/alleged crimes.

Btw----Florio is a turd. Always has been. I think he might be changing his tune because the NFL's case isn't really all that strong and that Judge Robinson will handle the proceedings like the professional she is. I understand that Florio and many others have been screaming that Watson is guilty and needs to be severely punished, but their witch hunt doesn't make the allegations more true.

There was video evidence in Hunt's case. There is no video evidence in Watson's case.

Snyder was not suspended and paid a $10 million dollar fine even though his case is being investigated by Congress. Yet, some want Watson punished more than Snyder.

Our own fans [sic.]

Why/how would an owner be suspended?

What more could they have done to Synder. You forgot to mention he was forced to remove himself from any operational duties within the club. I think we all know how active he was.

Second part definitely reads like you are judging others for their opinions. Something I thought you were against.

There was video evidence for Hunt. There are 24+ sworn testimonies against DW. Your comments appear to dismiss those as inconsequential. There's also lots of facts, text messages and payments to the therapist handlers. Again, you appear to dismiss the very real and significant details.... Whether that's your intent or not you would need to clarify.

Good question. This may help. If not, I'll find a better explanation.

I'm pretty sure Snyder was not "forced" to remove himself from daily operations. I do know that no one checks up on that. At least according to Goodell when he spoke to Congress.

This video is only 3 minutes long. I suggest taking time to watch it because it contains information from a sports attorney that pretty much echo what I have been saying about the NFL's predicament if they want to play hard ball.

j/c

It seems as though it was either the NFLPA or watson's attorney Hardin that made the false leak that the NFL is willing to settle for 6-8 games. Trying to turn the tide in the court of public opinion. the NFL has not changed their position on the one year.

Someone from NFL pushes back on notion that it would accept 6-8 game Deshaun Watson suspension

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.c...cept-6-8-game-deshaun-watson-suspension/

I mean if people are going to call rumors facts one rumor is just as good as another.

Now you've piqued my interest.

What is involved in an owner suspension? Do they have to give up the equivalent of a game check?

Or do they just have to watch from their million dollar theatre in their bajillion dollar mansion?

I really don't know the answer to that question, oober. I'll see if I can find some info later on.

Btw----not sure if the article mentioned this, but Richardson was forced to sell the Panthers. I don't think it was voted on, but they were going to lay the hammer down. What's odd is that he was a former player. At least I think that is true.

Irsay was suspended for six games in 2014.


He was also fined $500,000. So they basically took away his lunch money and hall pass, I wonder if he got any demerits?

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id...-indianapolis-colts-six-games-fines-500k

Snyder is still being investigated by the NFL. The owners have talked about voting him out thus forcing him to sell. They need 26 votes I believe to make that happen and they are not there yet. It's not over with Snyder as of yet no matter how much you want people to believe that it has been settled. Snyder's wife is running the day-to-day operations at the moment. One other final opinion, if Watson gets a downplayed suspension for any reason, I predict that it won't be long until he's in the news again. Guys like him don't change if they don't seek help and pay for their crimes. That's why he settled with 20 already and if the NFLPA gets him off the hook with a slap on the wrist - expect more of the same from him going forward.

I don't recall mac saying that. In fact, I don't believe I have read where anyone has said that. Making things up yet again?

Then how can you say Snyder got special treatment if it isn't over? Do you have a crystal ball telling you the final penalty? Maybe we should do the same with Watson, suspend him now for 4 games then if he loses the suits or has more suits filed against him then ban him for life. Seems fair and equal.

The NFL fined him $10 million. He volunteered to step away for a bit, but was not forced to. Goodell admitted no one checks if he stays away. The ONLY reason it isn't over yet is because Congress got involved due to the atrocity of the allegations. Can you wrap your brain around that or do you just want to continue to argue?

Only just got a chance to watch this clip. RICH Eisen has been pretty spot on with his commentary so far. Not over the top. Just common sense.

j/c….

Sounds pretty weak.

If you mean for the NFL, I would agree. That said, I'm assuming the source was from the NFLPA/Watson side of the situation.

Not over the top? LMAO.

I meant for the NFL. I saw something similar post by PFT. Maybe the same source

It probably was.

For a lot of us, our guard goes up anytime cases are first filed in Civil Courts w/out even police reports. Money over justice. It appears the NFL's case is very weak. The GJ decided that the case was weak when the plaintiffs finally decided to go the Criminal court. Most have settled and got what they were seeking. The others will probably follow at some point.

The uproar will be loud if Watson gets off w/out much of a punishment. There will be some that will refer to him as a sexual deviant the rest of his life even though they don't know for a fact that he is guilty.

What was over the top?

I'm not particularly worried about him being a sexual deviant. You could argue quite reasonably that 66 different massage therapists with an apparent hope or intent to get sexual gratification from them is Sexual Deviancy. It's certainly not normal. But I've stated many times - if he sought and found willing, consensual happy endings from providers who knew going in what the expectation was, it would not bother me. 66 is a high number - but it's not going to prevent me enjoying me rooting for the Browns with him playing.

Sexual manipulation, coercion, un-consensual acts and exposure and sexual activity or a predator - That's what he's accused of. That's not just having a healthy sexual appetite. That's not acceptable.

* Edit - to highlight what you wrote that in white. It seems you don't want to judge DW despite sworn testimony and many known facts ... but you are very quick to judge the women who have not settled. That doesn't seem neutral/fair or equitable. just how I interpret what you just wrote.

I respect your opinion if you do not think it was over the top, but he went off and threatened to go off in the future if the punishment was zero games. He did not even question that the NFL wanting an indefinite suspension. There was no mention of how Snyder was treated. It seemed very one-sided to me. I have despised Eisen for years due to his arrogance and I haven't been listening to his takes, but you piqued my curiosity and I listened. I won't criticize you for believing the way you do, but I think his take was WAY over the top because it was so one-sided against a man who has NOT been convicted of a crime.

His other takes have been with a critical lens. But he's been good, you should watch them. He talked in this clip about the hypocrisy of the owners not getting punished - which is fair, but he didn't make that the focal point.

I think there are a few talking heads and commentators that all feel that if there are cases pending then an "indefinite" suspension, which would be a minimum of 1 year - would be reasonable until the cases are resolved. If all the cases were settled it would be a different scenario.

Question/What If: the 5 remaining cases do not settle. The NFL/NFLPA/Sue Robinson agree to an 6-8 game suspension. And then in the off season the civil cases are heard and more details emerge and DW is found guilty in 1 or more of the cases? .... What then?

I could say the same about you in reverse. Hell, I could say that about a lot of you on here. I bring a different voice. Some people think opposing points of view are a good thing. Some don't because they feel the need to only hear one side of the story. Trust me on this one.........there have been far, far more negative comments about Watson on here than even fair. Yet, you never question those people in regards to their objectivity.

I'm cool w/you and I disagreeing on what is transpiring in this particular case, but please save the fair and equitable argument for someone else. It's been wildly unfair inequitable for the vast majority of posts on this board. We are at a point where folks PM me to discuss the merits and facts of this entire situation because of how one-sided things are on this board in regards to Watson, Baker, and the Browns organization. It would be nice if people could feel safe to voice their opinions w/out being attacked by a small, but very vocal segment of our board's population.

You can fire back at me and I'll let it go. It's cool. But, let me know if you want to have a reasonable conversation that is lacking I'm the one who is being unfair and inequitable.