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

Thanks.

Because that's what he does. Then claims that's only "what you think" he does. It's just a way to muddy up another watson thread. And as of now it's working.

So DW is coming to Cleveland to get away from that !

Deshaun Watson officially requests trade from Texans hours after team names head coach

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...exans-hours-after-team-names-head-coach/

Report: Texans QB Deshaun Watson Unhappy Over Lack of Input on GM, Coach

https://www.si.com/nfl/2021/01/08/houston-texans-deshaun-watson-unhappy-gm-hiring-process

Deshaun Watson Frustrated By Texans General Manager, Head Coach Hiring Process

https://www.battleredblog.com/2021/...al-manager-and-head-coach-hiring-process

Watson cut off all communication with the team for days right after the HC was hired and demanded a trade at that time. Facts are facts.

Watson = LeBron.

Watson has more ability than Baker. But he probably will have no avail-ability in 2022 (my best-case scenario is a 10-game suspension).

If it is the whole season and we don’t keep Baker (highly likely) or bring in a solid vet to back-up we are screwed harder than when Debbie went to Dallas.

Baker was below average in terms of week-to-week consistency. That was the one thing that always drove me nuts. If I had to choose between hater and Baker Bro, I'm a Bro, but his consistency was something that was consistently maddening.

I don't think so, Lampy. We won't be as good as we could be with Watson under center, but I don't see us as being screwed.

No matter why Baker had a bad season last year the end result was it was a bad season, yet we were a missed field goal a 3-4 picks against Green Bay from winning the division, or at least making the playoffs.

I think Bake was the 30th ranked QB, be it unhealthy. I think Brissett can be that at minimum, and even better.

I think we have a good enough team that even behind Brissett we can push for playoffs, and once you get there, who knows? I don't think we will win a Super Bowl, but I also don't think we are totally screwed if Watson doesn't play.

Stop. Please spare us this newly found pleasantry regarding people' opinions here on the matter. You, daily, have been ridiculing and bullying people here for simply not taking your position or not immediately bringing pitch forks to Watson's home.


Then please state it again, because you change your point like the wind when people rebut you. All you really said in response to me was using way too many words to just say you discredit 'unnamed sources' of Florio. The rest of your post is filler and gobbledygook. And if that was your point, you aren't doing a real good job addressing Florio's change of tune, which is why I pointed it out in the beginning. This Florio story has caused him to completely do a 180 on his opinion from the info of his sources. It hasn't changed mine on where I think this is going to end up, but it's worth recognizing the info he believes is credible has sway a hard stance that falls just shy of yours. That's what is interesting.

Enjoy the last word.

Well, someone brought this up quite a long time ago and was ridiculed for it.

Stop. Please spare us this newly found pleasantry regarding people' opinions here on the matter. You, daily, have been ridiculing and bullying people here for simply not taking your position or not immediately bringing pitch forks to Watson's home.


Then please state it again, because you change your point like the wind when people rebut you. All you really said in response to me was using way too many words to just say you discredit 'unnamed sources' of Florio while posting info on this board all the time referring to unnamed sources to justify your position. The rest of your post is filler and gobbledygook. And if that was your point, you aren't doing a real good job addressing Florio's change of tune, which is why I pointed it out in the beginning. This Florio story has caused him to completely do a 180 on his opinion from the info of his sources. It hasn't changed mine on where I think this is going to end up, but it's worth recognizing the info he believes is credible has sway a hard stance that falls just shy of yours. That's what is interesting.

Enjoy the last word.

Edited.

Not for anything, but another possibility is that he flip-flopped just to be the contrarian view and keep people talking and clicking his links since pretty much every other reporter out there was already going long on the "minimum 1 year; indefinite suspension" angle. It is as good a possibility as anything else.

Let's face it, at this point, everyone is arguing the outcome of things that haven't happened yet, using things to bolster their argument that nobody is even 100% are applicable, and none of us have any control over any of it, anyway. What is even dumber is that we have so many stating these viewpoints as absolutes instead of recognizing that they're just another opinion that is no better informed than any other ... and people are actually getting bent out of shape over it.
It's past the point of being comical.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but I meant a better option at backup QB than Dobbs, should Brissett go down. I don’t think he’ll be awful, he’s solid enough especially with the team we have around him.

So a healthy Brissett can be as good as an injured Baker. I can see that.

Thanks again for entering into a football discussion. I do have PM if all you want to do is whine.

I actually agreed with the point that unnamed sources aren't as credible as they used to be. That wasn't a point that I originally made. Journalism used to mean more than it does now. I also made it clear that I wasn't saying whether the source was credible or not. I said and gave examples of how what the source said was his opinion of what he heard. I made it obvious that two different people can hear the exact same thing and arrive at different opinions of what that does or doesn't mean. But you keep doing you.

Agreed. Using words like predator, rapey, sexual deviant, etc were extremely premature. Saying things like others don't care about women was dumb. Belittling others who wanted to wait and see until all the facts were out was getting bent out of shape. Insisting that the Browns did not do their due diligence and that this was the worst trade every was extremely premature.

Taking a closer look at the NFL’s case against Deshaun Watson

Posted by Mike Florio on July 4, 2022, 1:55 AM EDT
link


The NFL and the NFL Players Association spent three days last week submitting evidence and argument regarding the question of whether Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson should be suspended to start the 2022 season and, if so, the number of games he’ll miss. Judge Sue L. Robinson eventually will issue a decision, subject to an appeal by either party (unless she finds that no discipline should be imposed at all).

So what was the NFL’s actual case against Watson? It’s one thing to repeatedly insist on a suspension of at least one year. It’s another to have the evidence that, when combined with the Personal Conduct Policy, will justify that kind of a punishment.

When considering the sheer number of accusations against Watson, it’s hard not to think something happened that would justify a suspension. With 24 lawsuits filed (20 have been settled) and, per the New York Times, at least 66 different women hired via social media for private massages — and given the admission that Watson had sexual encounters with at least three of the women who sued him — it seems reasonable to conclude that Watson had a habit of arranging private massages with strangers and trying to steer the massages toward consensual sexual encounters.

But that apparently wasn’t the evidence the league presented. After interviewing only 12 of the women who have made allegations against Watson, the league presented evidence as to five persons who provided massages to Watson. The 24 lawsuits, the 66 or more strangers who were retained for private massages, and the allegation made in at least one of the lawsuits that the actual number exceeds 100 apparently weren’t part of the case against him.

The NFL’s case focused on five people. And, as PFT reported last week, that evidence included no proof of violence or threats or any type of physical conduct that would constitute actual assault.

The Personal Conduct Policy expressly prohibits “assault and/or battery, including sexual assault or other sex offenses.” If there’s no sexual assault, that specific provision of the policy hasn’t been violated.

And that’s the provision that creates a baseline suspension of six games per offense. Here’s the key language of the policy: “With regard to violations of the Policy that involve: (i) criminal assault or battery (felony); (ii) domestic violence, dating violence, child abuse and other forms of family violence; or (iii) sexual assault involving physical force or committed against someone incapable of giving consent, a first violation will subject the violator to a baseline suspension without pay of six games, with possible upward or downward adjustments based on any aggravating or mitigating factors.”

Without proof of “sexual assault involving physical force or committed against someone incapable of giving consent,” there’s no violation of that specific provision. (It’s possible that the league will try to argue that the circumstances suggest that the persons were not capable of giving consent, but that typically refers to someone who is underage or incapacitated in some way, for example, someone who is unconscious due to alcohol or drug consumption.)

Absent evidence of an actual sexual assault, the league’s case rests on two catch-all provisions at the bottom of a list of bullet points in the policy: (1) “conduct that poses a genuine danger to the safety and well-being of another person”; and (2) “conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL personnel.” The argument would be that Watson’s habit of trying to steer massages toward sexual encounters falls within either or both of these prohibitions.

But that’s where the lack of discipline for Patriots owner Robert Kraft complicates the league’s case. If no action was taken against Kraft for having a massage that allegedly became a sexual encounter, how can the league discipline Watson for the same thing?

The difference, of course, is that the evidence against Watson ultimately centers on the fact that he allegedly tried, repeatedly, to make massages into sexual encounters. Kraft was never accused of doing that, by anyone.

For the NFL, that may be the best, strongest argument to present to Judge Robinson in the written briefs due next week. Watson, they’ll argue, posed a genuine danger to the safety and well-being of another and/or undermined or put at risk the integrity of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL personnel by repeatedly arranging private massages and trying to make them into sexual encounters.

It’s unclear whether this practice was firmly established in the evidence submitted at last week’s hearing. Although the NFL focused on five women, Watson could have been questioned at length on the full extent of his habit. Did he admit that he tried to make massages into sexual encounters? If he denied it, was his testimony credible?

Then there’s the question of whether the NFL may have deliberately scaled back the effort to create the impression that Watson’s behavior extended so broadly in light of the lawsuit filed Monday (the timing may have been not coincidental) against the Texans for allegedly knowing about Watson’s alleged habit and taking no steps to protect the women who eventually found out during the massages that he would try to make it something else.

While it’s impossible to know the specific extent of the league’s argument based on an alleged habit of making massages into something other than massages without seeing the full transcript of the hearing, that could be the key to determining whether Judge Robinson would have a way to distinguish Watson’s behavior from Kraft’s and to impose discipline based not on any actual assault but on the alleged practice of trying to make massages into sexual encounters.

The answers will appear in Judge Robinson’s written decision. She’ll need to craft a ruling that clearly explains her factual findings and that outlines in basic terms the way the Personal Conduct Policy applies to those facts to result in discipline. Absent proof of sexual assaults and given that the Kraft precedent makes it very difficult to punish Watson for engaging in massages that became consensual sexual encounters, Judge Robinson likely will be able to discipline Watson only if she finds that he was engaged in a habit of trying to make massages into sexual encounters, and if she believes that this behavior runs afoul of either or both of the two catch-all prohibitions of the Personal Conduct Policy.

That’s why the NFL’s effort to discipline Watson is so different from the criminal process (which resulted in no indictments) and the civil lawsuits that are still pending. For the league, the controlling principles appear in the Personal Conduct Policy. The facts will be determined by Judge Robinson, based on the evidence that was presented to her.

She’ll make the decision. If she chooses to impose any discipline at all, the league will have to decide whether to appeal to the Commissioner for a greater punishment. But the factual findings made by Judge Robinson are, by rule, binding on the Commissioner.

Whatever the final outcome, it will need to be explained in a way that that will be understandable and satisfactory to those who may have a hard time reconciling the 24 lawsuits and the evidence suggesting that Watson had a habit of arranging manages and trying to make them into sexual encounters with something less than a one-year suspension.

What if Brissett injures his shoulder in the 2nd quarter of the 2nd game of this year because Anthony Schwartz doesn't fight for a ball that gets intercepted and then Brissett puts in the effort to make a tackle and it dislocates his shoulder.
or:
Baker was healthy at the start of last season too.

No it won't! Nothing would be satisfactory to those who make up their mind.
So a One year, or a 4 game are equally unsatisfactory, because nothing would be satisfactory to those people.

Nope, not what I was saying, at all.
Don't assign meaning to my words that isn't there.

It's kinda his thing

Why would any team want a top QB that isn't able to play due to suspension? Then go on to pay the guy $230 million over 5 years, then guarantee it to boot?

SO I think it's very safe to say, they didn't do a good enough job with investigating this situation.

Do you have breaking news?

Eo - the Judge asked both parties to submit written arguments on July 11th. She will then review and make a decision. Time line should be before TC.

https://clesportstalk.com/my-thoughts-on-the-watson-case/

tab, I am not an attorney, but I have did quite a bit of research on this topic.

Sue Robinson is a former judge rather than a current judge. She has a really clean record. It is pretty safe to assume that she will rely more on facts than feelings or opinions.

It is hard to say if she will impose a stiff penalty, a moderate one, a minimal one, or none at all because this is the first case under the new CBA laws. This is just my opinion, but I don't think the suspension will be nearly as long as many on here are claiming due to the precedence that has been set in how the NFL has dealt w/cases involving owners and the NFLPA's threat to sue the NFL should the punishment not remain consistent. But again, that is pure opinion.

I think the NFLPA will appeal if there is a lengthy suspension. I'm wondering if the NFL will appeal if the suspension is short because there are reports out there that they want to put this mess behind them. Of course, should Judge Robinson rule that there is no suspension, the NFL would be unable to appeal.

There is no set time for announcing the suspension. Judge Robinson has asked for post-hearing briefs from both sides. They are due the week of July 11th. Thus, she has two weeks to ponder the evidence that was already given by both parties. She has not announced a date for rendering her decision. Folks are speculating that it could be before the Browns open up TC, which I believe begins on July 27th.

I have no idea on when a decision will be made. I don't know how long it will take the judge to render decision, then i have no idea if she is the one to release said decision or if the NFL can sit on it for a period of time. ??

You are correct A judge is supposed to be a neutral force. In a court setting, they are to oversee the trial and that the trial is conducted fairly, and all the rules are being followed so the defendant receives a fair trial.

If it is a court bench trial, or a case like this, where they judicating to determining guilt or innocence, or penalty they should be fact driven.

That said, with a personal conduct hearing, which is what this is, the facts as you, I or anybody else might interpret might not be what the judge is reviewing.

From the article I posted above - this to me is a very important and compelling sentence:

https://clesportstalk.com/my-thoughts-on-the-watson-case/

NFL insider Josina Anderson said according to her sources Judge Robinson was going to base her opinion on how the Personal Conduct Policy (PCP) was precisely written. The PCP states individuals will be suspended for conduct that is “illegal, violent, dangerous, or irresponsible puts innocent victims at risk.”


It certainly makes sense that (as reported) the numbers of providers (66+) and the number of allegations in total were not part of the NFL's presentation to the (former) judge who is acting as arbitrator. None of that would be relevant to what is precisely written in the conduct policy. Depending on the strictness of that interpretation - it's possible Watson did some things that would be generally viewed as unacceptable to the public but not punishable under the conduct policy. Arranging with some of these women to meet under the pretense of wanting a massage and then manipulating and using your status to pressure them into un-consenting sexual acts might not strictly break conduct policy.

Exactly. As I said, it may not be looking strictly to the facts as are alleged. They may not even matter in so far as to how Watson may or may not have violated the conduct policy.

Conduct unbecoming can mean a whole lot of things that aren't necessarily spelled out if one wants charges to stick. The NFL wants them to stick, she may or may not agree.

Yup.

The words used in that definition vary in how much ambiguity there may be. "Illegal"... not much ambiguity there; it's pretty cut and dry. "Violent" or "Dan6erous"... still not much, but it is a bit more open to individual interpretation. "Irresponsible"... now this is a gigantic catch-all that is almost entirely subjective to the feelings of the individual judging, and, depending upon her stance, every last action by Watson could fall under the "irresponsible" umbrella.

j/c:

Some things to consider are highlighted below. It's best to click on the link to read this, but I pasted it for convenience.

Let's play devil's advocate here for a moment.

Let's say Judge Robinson comes back with no suspension or a very light suspension at best. After her ruling and no appeal from either side at this point, Watson gets ready to play in 2022. What does the Browns or the NFL do if 2 more civil suits are filed this month? Afterall, Watson (according to the NYTimes) has had at least 66 different encounters over the 17-month period and according to the plaintiff's lawyer, many have issues with what transpired with Watson but have been hesitant to come forward. Then 2 more suits are filed in August and 2 more in September and so on every month of the season. Watson still has 4 civil suits that have refused to be resolved to date. Adding more to the group cannot be good for the image for Watson, the Browns, or the NFL. Watson has already settled 20 of the suits but let's be candid, those settlements are not a declaration in innocence or guilt but still should be consider in the broad scope of things.

Come November, Watson is playing yet now 12 or more civil suits are pending including the civil suit against the Texans for enabling Watson's behavior. Do the Browns and the NFL turn a blind eye to the continued claims of alleged sexual abuse because they already made a ruling without having all the information? Obviously, there's as much chance of Watson losing the civil suits as there is him winning them. What happens if Watson loses said civil suits next off season? What does that do to the integrity on the NFL and/or the Cleveland Browns? What if Watson's lawyers continue to negotiate payoffs to these women who have alleged sexual abuse? The drip - drip - drip during the season would be devastating to the image of the Browns and the NFL. Do you really believe that the sports writers are going to asking about the latest game or more focused on the most recent civil suits against Watson and ultimately the Browns?

The only way this could be put to bed successfully is for Watson's lawyers to get releases from the women not heard from yet. Whether that number is 66 or 100, the only way to put this thing to rest is to get total closure. Without those releases, Watson could be looking at years of dealing with this matter. In reality, Judge Robinson's decision will have nothing to do with the potential legal issues Watson could face going forward whether civil or criminal. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a tell all book be composed already. Watson's football ability aside, this might get a whole lot uglier than it is right now and a light or zero suspension decision from Judge Robinson will only compound the poor image of the Browns, Watson, and the NFL. Buyer beware!

Someone said this earlier, but even if he doesn't agree w/me.......I see these comments as a good fit to your post.

j/c

I don't pretend to know any more than anyone else in this matter...actually, I probably know less than most. I don't like one bit what has gone down in regards to the accusation against DW - for him AND the women. That said:

I've read more than once some official-type comments about DW using the massage "angle" in hopes of getting some consensual action. That "angle" is being presented as if he is the only guy to ever do one thing in hopes of getting something else from a woman. What guy out there can say they never did something to impress/convince/woo/court a woman with the end game of there possibly being sex?

Before anyone's head explodes over that...please understand that I am in no way condoning what - it appears - has happened. I find it reprehensible actually. I have a wife and a daughter - not that that makes me special...but every Dad out there has an edge when it comes to how women are treated knowing that said woman could be my own daughter.

The issue I have is that DW having/using an "angle" to help him score is being presented as something new to society and interactions between men and woman...that ish has been going on forever. (See the first caveman to be able to start a fire.) The fact - or even possibility - that he used the massage angle to get consensual sex should be completely irrelevant IMO. The fact that he has so many accusers is completely separate from him using an angle to gain favor(s).

There were 2 new civil suits filed in June and a new civil suit against the Texans for enabling in July. To ignore these happenings is opening up the NFL, the Browns, and Watson for much more ugly going forward. If you're Judge Robinson and you know that it's been verified that Watson had 66 or more encounters with women of which the vast majority have not been heard from whether pro or con, how can you with a clear conscience make a ruling on a situation that currently has no way of having closure? That will be a horrible look for the NFL, the Browns and Watson. Keep in mind, just because Judge Robinson says the claims do not meet her threshold for a lengthy suspension at this time doesn't automatically mean that Watson will win the civil suits. If they do, it won't be so comical for all concerned.

I can only speak to myself - But I've always stated I have no issue with DW using online services with the goal of Happy Endings if it is consensual. I don't care about the numbers either. The issue is what the allegations that were brought were not that, it was non-consensual exposure and masturbation and coercion/pressure to perform something they did not want to do. It was stated early on there was a pattern of escalation - it started off small and with licensed professionals and then as time went along he started to use other non-licensed services. I think it's obvious to anyone, if you want a HE you don't go to a licensed professional.... and even when you don't go to a licensed pro - it is not automatic that they expect, provide or have experience with clients who expose or perform lewd acts. But I'd bet you could easily communicate what you are looking for before ever meeting in person. jmo

We have different views on this. I'm not into predicting the future in regards to issues that may come forward in the future. I have tried to highlight the facts as we know them and when I offer an opinion on those pieces of evidence, I clearly state that it is just my opinion. For example, I think the statement about not using violence or coercion is fairly significant. That is my opinion. I think that precedence is important to this case because the NFLPA hired a big gun attorney who has already said he was going to use Kraft, Snyder, and Jones as examples of precedence. However, it is just my opinion that Judge Robinson will consider precedence.

However, I will not predict who will win the Civil Suits or even if they will take place because I have no evidence to base my opinion on. Again, we see this differently.