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

The initial suggestion was to use last year as his suspension.... That's how the $10 m came up as a suggestion.

Watson's punishment should be in line with whatever it is likely / probable that he did. If testimony and other corroborating information shows that he used coercion and his power/influence to intimidate non consensual sexual advamces.... Then he should be punished accordingly. The fans don't matter. The team doesn't matter. Synder, Kraft and Co don't matter. It's about DW and his actions.

No disagreement, but again, in the end, in a civil matter like this it still boils down to money. The loss of pay is the real penalty, not the not playing part. Any no play penalty hurts the team and fans as much as it hurts the player.

To your earlier point on Florio, I agree. He was basing everything on what Buzzbee was pushing as the narrative. Now that the defense is pushing back where it really counts, the attitude changes.

I don't agree that a civil case is just about money.

Was Watson under contract? Was he the starting QB and his not being there had a dramatic effect on the team offense? There's been numerous posts that Mayfield quit on the Browns, what's the difference? I get that it's opinion, but it goes both ways. The fact still remains that what happened in 2021 was self-inflicted as was the legal issues and had nothing to do with his ability to play in 2021. He could have played and made the decision not to play and it should have no bearing on what is happening in the hearings now.

The fact they were settled doesn't mean they didn't exist or didn't happen. Yeah, in corporate America paying them off doesn't absolve you of anything. I doubt it does for most people either.

Yes, some people only like the unnamed sources that say what they want to hear. Some make things like that gospel because of what they want to hear. Then some people don't.

Is this some personal reflection or something?

They're actually not. Not at all. He announced his demand for a trade within hours of the hiring of a new HC, period.


You haven't actually been paying attention have you?

Watson did the exact same thing Baker did. Things happened he didn't like and watson demanded a trade. So did Baker. At least step up to the plate and own it.

I think there is a huge difference. Watson decided not to play and actually quit on his tam and team mates - for a whole season. He may or may not have been significantly upset by racially charged comments by the owner about the "inmates" - but he definately quit once the announcement/decision was made on the HC who he had no input into. He took his toys and wouldn't play. Left an entire team in the lurch.

Baker - gutted it out through 14 games with a torn labarum, broken humerus and other injuries. He then played in a game versus the steelers and the best pass rusher in all of the NFL. Our coach left our 3rd string backup LT 1 on 1 with said pass rusher for many, many plays and Baker got hammered. He then decided to "quit" on the team. Oh - and at this point in the season it was virtually impossible / improbable that the Browns could get to the playoffs.

Yeah - I see an enormous chasm of difference. But that's just me.

So I just g searched Browns news, and, sigh,
their 3rd top was titled, " Mike Florio, "I wouldn't be surprised if Watson isn't suspended at all"

But that's not what got me, what got me was this one.

https://www.si.com/nfl/browns/browns-maven-features/watson-likely-to-see-field-in-2022

SI, Sports Illiustrates seems to be pretty even keeled on reporting on issues, imo over multiple topics, so,

and it says 2 hours ago, so I guess it's from today,
and the final paragraph on the opening page scan said, something very similar to,

If the league failed to prove acts of violence or malicious intent then the baseline is 6 games like previous cases of suspensions.

Isn't it odd that after we were no longer in playoff contention, in a meaningless game that had no implications, they call it quitting on the team. But when their new toy refused to play a single game for an entire season which by most accounts, considering how much impact the claim watson has on a teams season outcome, he ruined their teams season, they try to call that the same thing? Watson single handedly insured his team would not make the playoffs. And in many cases they try to vilify Baker for it while excusing watson for it. If not many try to compare the two as being similar.

Simply amazing.

And I haven't seen anyone dispute that watson is "better on the field". You know, I've known some people I really liked and made great coworkers. But when I found out how they treated women it disgusted me. It didn't make them any less good coworkers. But the two are not even close to being the same thing.

How about this one, which is titled, " Watson may never play for the Browns"

https://www.si.com/nfl/steelers/news/deshaun-watson-never-play-cleveland-browns

But when I open it and read it, it's a complete line of bull stuff from Jason La Canfora's hopes and wishes imo.

All it appears to be is dude saying, ..... well first, in the first line that concept of "never" becomes never this year.
then in later lines
All it appears to be is dude saying, well ! We don't know what will come out during the upcoming months, so if Watson doesn't play because he's suspended some games, who knows if he will play any games afterwards
I mean, (he's appearing to say), until we see Watson play one game, we won't know if he will ever play.

..... Well it sounds to me TL, that LaCanfora is just a Hater, and a steeler fan, having wishful thinking.

That article was SI, sports illiustrated, (steelrs division) and from one day ago. also found after searching Cleveland Browns news.

( And to Claim that anything is possible to be revealed in the future against Watson, is so much a mystery box, So to that I say!
In Fact a mystery box could be anything, it could even be a boat.
We could find out any player could be accused of having done any (questionable action) anywhere of all the 5000 people in the NFL, to anyone and anything,
Organizations, Corportations, a mystery box is a mystery box.

I don't know what to make of this one.
https://dawgpounddaily.com/2022/07/02/deshaun-watson-suspension/

... don't want to get caught wishfully thinking. i.e. (anything that sounds too good to be true probably is.)
...
The link says the hearings focused on 5, cases,(12 that becomes 5) the league may have failed to prove what it was trying to in all 5, things went well for Watson perhaps in the hearings before this Judge. May have been no proof of violence or maliciousness,
but then the link says the Judge wants, or would take some time before making a decision.

What it seemed to fail to include is that Florio was using information based on the opinion of an unnamed source and that he himself has no first and information. That makes it no mare than speculation as to the results of the hearing like, you, me and everyone else.

Replying to Pit, but it is a PSA to everyone, I suppose.

Saying "unnamed source" is being redundant. They are unnamed simply by definition.

Sources have been attached at the hip to the journalism industry for decades upon decades and have been used to break groundbreaking stories because their anonymity was promised by those sharing their info. Unfortunately, journalism has taken a complete nosedive in integrity these past 20 years and people often use the term 'source' when it is untrue, generally in the political realm but not exclusively.....if you are claiming this, that's fine, I'd be curious to know why you think the source would be bad/wrong.

Back to the topic:

This recent "turn on a dime" move from Florio is very curious to me. In no way do I think it absolves Watson, but for a NFL analyst to completely change his tune OVERNIGHT as a result of this source is fascinating to me. I'll go back and re-read some of the Florio articles Mac posted here about the Watson cases, but I'd be curious what any sources were referenced about the situation prior to the hearing.

I think you explained my thought process in the above quote which may help answer your question. My claim isn't so much that it's untrue or true but whether we can take such things at face value. It has far more to do with your comment about how such things have evolved over the past 20 years. Point being 20 years ago it was far more believable to consider a journalists source as something we could consider more credible. In today's environment in which everyone is so dependent on internet clicks and getting the scoop in a moment not so much so anymore. We have no idea if or when a source is credible and when it's not.

And in this case there doesn't seem to be any specifics as to what was actually said in this hearing. What we are hearing is what this person interpreted the testimony to include or not include. You can see exactly what I'm talking about on this very board. Posters see all of the same articles and reports and draw totally different conclusions as to what's going on, and even what these reports conclusions are. So I think everyone should be very careful about thinking this unnamed source has reached the same conclusion that others would come to by hearing the same testimony.

j/c:

I see an huge difference between Watson and Baker, too. Watson is elite. Baker is below average. Watson is a far, far, far superior QB to Baker. I'm glad our FO made this move even though it is controversial. The Browns will benefit in the long run no matter how loud Baker's fans protest.

From someone who posts political articles all the time referring to sources, I find this response to be ironic at a minimum. Plus, I think you should be honest here... you used 'unnamed' sources in an attempt to discredit something you don't agree with, which again, is ironic at minimum.

You are not exempt from this yet you are the one person taking the strongest stand AND criticizing people for having a wait and see approach when it comes to drawing conclusions.

888, my response as to what the difference is was directed at a poster than claimed Watson didn't quit on his team. My point was this forum has had dozens of posts accusing Baker of quitting on the team, but Watson's was justified. I beg the differ. Your post is exactly right and what I was trying to state. Thanks

But no one is saying Watson if/when he plays is not an upgrade. There are posters that give DW a free pass on quitting on his team for a season while slamming Baker for missing one game when injured and out of contention.

I did not say that anyone is saying that Watson isn't an upgrade. Folks were comparing the two. I compared the two on the field. It's no comparison in my view point. Watson is far, far superior to Baker and that is why the Browns made the move. Not sure what the problem is? I did not insult anyone. I stated my opinion about two football players in the Pure Football forum.

Watsons' game is not far far superior to Bakers, it is to Brissetts'
Watsons' play is far far superior to Brissetts, and Bakers play is also far far superior to Brissetts'
Baker is probably a little better than Watson, simply because Baker would be returning to his team.
Watson's game play has some flaws, he takes too many sacks, and ... Brissett fumbles too often...
Watson Takes too many sacks, and in years past with the Texans, one could never 'really' believe in a Watson led Texans team's ability to go far in the playoffs, because of Watsons' propensity to throw interceptions, at harsh times, in the playoffs. (And or big regular season games)

I mean you could always count on, at some point in that playoff game, that Watson would throw an int. and it would turn the tide back to the other team.
Baker and Watson both have one playoff win.

Bakers' positive, the last 4 years, has been that the Browns, when Baker was on the field, were never really behind the 8 ball on 3rd and long, Bakers ability to pick up 3rd and long first downs, was sensational, phenomenal, and never really discussed and given appreciation on DTMB.
Either way, just saying it doesn't make it so. One has to look back and see what happened, and also look at what kind of support players have around them to see how they will project to perform in the future.

FYI: In 60 games, Baker has a 55.4 completion percentage on 3rd downs. That's terrible. He has thrown 23 TDs. That's pretty good. He has thrown 20 interceptions. That's horrific.


https://www.statmuse.com/nfl/ask/baker-mayfield-3rd-down-stats

Watson will be an upgrade for us at qb but baker is not “below average”. Your visceral dislike of baker, that you have expressed repeatedly for, oh, 4 + years or so, makes it impossible for you to provide an objective evaluation of him. He will go somewhere , and if asked to compete for a starting position he will, and he will get it. He will be a solid qb wherever he goes.

Why must you make every argument personal? Did I criticize you? Or anyone? The facts say that Baker is below average. Denying that by trying to make things personal doesn't change a damn thing

I think Baker was better than below average, but he wasn't always average and his poor games exceeded his great games. The inconsistency was what was hard to bank on. Add in any frustrations between him and Stefanski, and possibly other team members leave us where we are.

Watson is a clear upgrade over Baker.

I think a facet of this comparison has to be acknowledging the choke factor for Baker, whether his own failure or someone else's. How often were leads blown and we failed to get it done in the clutch, especially taking a critical look at performance in the second half, the final quarter, the last series, the final play. Maybe some would lump it under 'gut check" or making those around you better, or putting the team on your back. Did the job get done or not? Baker and the Browns came up short repeatedly in often predictable and repeated fashion. I will admit to remembering losses more because they sting; it's the anger and the frustration talking. Baker touches the ball all day and has to bear the good and the bad deservedly.
Jury is out, I admit to knowing little about DW. Given his skills and athletic ability, he has a reputation for big plays and coming through. I will have to see it on the field. But if we win say half of the close ones we lost, we could be better with DW. Fingers crossed! Go, Browns!

Watson is a much better QB than Mayfield
I can begin with this. A team gave up 3 1st RD draft picks for Watson
Mayfield In his best season ever , wasn't worth a 1st RD pick
Let alone multiple 1's. That alone tells you Watson is better


Deshawn Watson didn't need to rely on play action throws to make
Big time splash yardage downfield
Mayfield needed Play action to in order hit chunk plays downfield.


Watson is better in the 4th q.
Mayfield historically struggles in the 4th q. When the Browns Needed to rally

Watson sees the field better than Mayfield

Agreed. I think Baker, when healthy, is a decent QB but not as good as DW. As I have said, we have a talented roster, possibly top 5. DW was the upgrade that was needed. I wasn't too enamored with the trade at first because of all the baggage that came with it but the more I thought about it and as I stated on another post, if we can get through all of it, we may be in good shape coming out the other side.

Why must every one of your posts have to get some kind of unwarranted dig in on Mayfield. The case in point is the comparison that was being talked about was between Mayfield and Watson was how Watson quit on his team for a whole year and some posters trying to claim Mayfield did the same thing which couldn't be further from the truth.

Not a single person that interjected their opinion on the post topic said anything about an upgrade at the position. It was about the act of quitting on the fans, team, and franchise. Nobody said a thing about football skills, the difference between the two players was asked as to their so called quitting on the team.

You continue to post football skills as a means of trying to justify the Watson upgrade trade that zero people have questioned. Your total dislike of Baker that you have repeatedly expressed now and for years makes it impossible for you to provide an objective evaluation of Watson or Mayfield on anything outside of the field of play. Your continued hijacking of every forum topic to sell the upgrade portion of the deal (Which no one has questioned) to give DW a free pass on or deflect fans concern of Watson quitting on his team for a season and his issues with women, guilty or not, while slamming Baker for anything and everything you can muster up to and including quitting on his team for missing one game when injured and out of contention. You are the one person taking the strongest stand and criticizing people and/or their opinions of anyone who has voiced any concerns about Watson's off the field questionable activities.

Hey, NEWSFLASH, at this time - Watson is an upgrade at the position that nobody on this forum has questioned. Your continued bashing of Mayfield at every turn doesn't alter the facts that Watson has some off the field issues of serious concern that Mayfield has never had and that my friend is a problem. Watson DID quit on his team, fans, and franchise for an entire year after signing one of the richest contracts in football where he could have played at any time being on a 53-man roster as a healthy scratch every week. Mayfield could never be accused of doing that to his team. Watson has 24 civil suits (and counting) against him for sexual abuse that is self-inflicted while Mayfield carries no such baggage. I compared the two as a total package on and off the field, there's no comparison in my viewpoint but the Browns have decided to move on - so be it. To quote you: Denying that by trying to make things personal doesn't change a damn thing.

What you think means absolutely nothing to me. You were the one to bring up Baker and then you throw yet another hissy fit if someone talks about Baker in a light that you don't approve of.

I don't wish to create a subscription to that site. Will you please summarize what the article says?

Thanks for the information. I was unable to read it for some reason. I do remember that Watson received support from players back when he made his stand to not play w/the Texans again. Thanks again for the information.

Some people want to build empires, some people want to build dynasties.

There's nothing ironic about it. And the funny thing is, I was agreeing with a point you had already made. Yet you chose not to point that out. Was there something misleading about that? Was the source named? I didn't think so. In this case it's second hand news. And I have never claimed that every political article is correct. They are no more or less bias from one direction than the other. I rely more on first hand quotes directly from the source in those articles. Not the political spin involved within them. In this case there are no direct quotes in regards to the testimony. So all that is being used is the "opinion someone has based on what he heard". Your analogy is quite a stretch.


Once again, I'm simply pointing out how it works. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. This is a message board. That's how they work. Everyone has the right to object to the opinion of others. At the very same time you avoided addressing my point like the plague. It appears you aren't actually interested in a discussion whatsoever. But other people read the board so for their benefit I'll give a couple of examples of what I'm referring to.......

Here is the text watson sent to Solis......
Some would see this as watson knowing his conduct made her uncomfortable and would consider it an admission of guilt at least to some degree. Others would not.


Now some may not consider this coercion but certainly others most definitely would. Neither of us know what evidence the NFL entered and which evidence it didn't. But these are two prime examples of why it's easy to see that Florio is reporting the opinion of what a third party gathered based in his interpretation of the evidence that was presented. It's easy to see that what he thinks that evidence actually meant may be quite different than what someone else may have thought it meant.

Hopefully those that actually wanted to look at the discussion rather than go, "yeah but you" have a better understanding now.

Thanks for the fine discussion BTW.