DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Deshawn Watson News

j/c...

I think that finding an accuser that is not a Buzbee client would cover more bases. Would you have called it rotten if the son weren't in the picture?

j/c:


FWIW

Hey Vers, just a heads up, I’ll be here every Sunday to remind you that I think DW is rapey as hell. EVERY GAME HE PLAYS.

That doesn't make sense.

You are judging. By your comments, I haven't seen anything that proves you aren't a "rapey predator".

I don't think you are, but do you have proof you aren't? Would my thinking you are, make it so?

Who asked for comments from the Peen-nut gallery? But hey, if you wanna make it personal that I don’t want to root for a rapey predator, WTH does that say about you?

....Damn, that's OLD cold.

All This ^ and nobody is talking about what I really care about.

Is Deshaun Watson, (assuming there will be some time he plays for the Browns.) All that matters, is,

When Deshaun Watson plays for the Browns,

and plays Worse than Baker Mayfield did, ( for a period of time, because that's what happens, good play comes and goes.) ... ... leave it.

When Watson plays Worse for the Browns than Baker did, who will be to blame then.

Wait, it's assumed Watson will play better for the Browns than Baker did.
He May! He may for some period of time, but to say there will be no period of time that Watson doesn't play worse for the Browns than the part that Baker played in a different, similar period of time, played better for the Browns, is to pretend that their won't be the ebbs and flows of football.

IN FACT, when was the last time any football team that was expected to just show up and be better actually was.
Ok, ... But , what about in OHIO? Sure tom brady, blah blah, Rodgers, but they don't let that s''''tuf go on in Ohio!

How's it going to look when Watson looks like a dirt sandwich hot off the grill.
And Baker looks like a pro-bowl type because the NFC is easier to pass the ball in.

Can Deshaun Watson play better for the Browns than Baker Mayfield would have?

I don't need permission to make comments.

I don't think I was making it personal. I was just pointing out flaws in your position.

Seems there has been a pretty big campaign the other way.

As for the "leak", I am not sure anything was leaked. Leak usually means to release of confidential information.

I don't keep up with this as much as some of you. Was this confidential information?

Actually by your definition none of the information disclosed by either side has qualified as a leak. Even the depositions were not under a gag order. There has been a lot of information put out from both sides in this case. That's actually a part of what legal representation gets paid to do in cases that are so public and in the media. Make the people that pay them look right and in a positive light.

J/C

So tomorrow is a big day when they submit their written arguments and summaries. I’d expect a decision and/or settlement this week.

Would be nice to have a result soon

Maybe. Those briefs aren't very brief. It might take through the weekend. I'd say next week is a stronger possibility, but you never know. It's just guesswork.

As I said earlier, just because any decision is made, I have no clue as to who drops the news and when they will.

From the 'Baker traded' thread.


You're kinda (emphasis on 'kinda'... see second paragraph) talking out of both sides of your mouth, here. You slam him for not owning up to mistakes while lecturing that he can't own up to something he's arguing he didn't do. Also, you're all loaded up for slamming him for settling him but say nothing about the other parties agreeing to the settlement (Watson wasn't the only one using the whole 'justice will prevail' shtick).

I think everyone can agree that the innocent label can't be applied to Watson. Clearly, something happened. What it was that happened is the subject of all the drama. I know you want to make this black-and-white (and to a point, I do understand), but the truth is there are a couple lines between completely innocent (which he clearly is not) and full-on sexual predator (which I'm actually LESS convinced is the case as time goes on). Just one of these allegations is too many, but deciding Watson playing is going to be the bridge too far (in terms of suspension the NFL is going for, and the stance many fans on here are taking) seems misplaced considering precedent (Ben raped, Tyreek Hill has an established issue with beating on women and children, etc.) as well as a lack of hard evidence.

I'd imagine the score of settled lawsuits for his behavior would be a flaw in your approach, right? I'd wager there is a huge difference in calling someone 'rapey' because you want to pick an internet fight and that they have been accused by many many women of unacceptable behavior.

j/c:

What does that even mean ("only 4 women are "at issue"")?

Only 4 women that they looked at have legit allegations? That's why I read that tweet, but that's a big statement... too big to just drop in a Tweet like that.

I took it like this-- As far as any suspension will be levied...the decision by the judge will be based on the 4 women's cases presented by the NFL in the hearing. That's what is at issue. I suppose that is pretty obvious, though.

However, I would have assumed if the NFL thought other cases were solid, there would have been more than four included during the proceedings, right? But that's been my question about the number of cases offered once the proceedings started weeks ago.

For whatever reason, for better or for worse, it seems that the NFL is minimizing its own case on the one hand while saying they are stalwartly pursuing an indefinite suspension on the other. The more I think about these actions, the more I believe that there is little chance that he gets a full season suspension. The NFL wants him to play; they just need to appease the public to some degree in the process.

Do you remember this?




I have opined that this was a public witch hunt. I never once believed those that said the Browns did not do their due diligence and didn't investigate the case. Our FO is way too intelligent to not do so. The Browns and Watson's camp have been confident in the end results "once the facts come out."

j/c:

Which is the opposite of what you claimed - that you didn't "take sides" and that you had not judged DW or the Women/allegations ... but lo - here you are proclaiming it't a witch hunt. Ergo the women were all lying.

Ummm.... so let me get this straight.

League produces no evidence of coercion. Says ruling will be all about preponderance of evidence.

Honest question... how does someone who's expecting a long suspension read this and not want to bash their head against the wall. Help me understand what exactly is going on here.

My take is that they do not want this to be a "witch hunt". The more detailed cases were most likely the ones they focused on for the basis of the NFL investigation. We do need to remember, and I am guilty of this myself, the majority of these allegations comes down to indecent exposure. While "icky", it amounts to a minor misdemeanor absent a minor. So, THOSE cases probably weren't going to take on as much merit as the others that involved worse allegations. When you are talking about 26 women, even indecent exposure is relevant, imho, but for the sake of punishment, they are most likely focusing on the harsher allegations.

None of us understand. This is the first case using this process, so we don't know what that process even looks like. My only hope is that at the end of it all, there is enough explanation to actually understand this new process. Our speculation on this is a moot point, when we don't even fully understand the process.

I feel dumb for asking this, but why are we supposed to be bashing our heads against the wall? I'm not sure what you mean.

Edit: I guess I kinda get it if you are just talking about those who are expecting a long suspension. I think that there were a ton of articles and talk about how the NFL was pushing for a long suspension. But, I would still like to hear your explanation.

I agree that there is the unknown because this is the first case under the new process. I think there is enough information out there that we can understand how the process works. What we don't know is what evidence has been provided by each side and I am not sure if we will ever know those details. Also, we don't know how much importance Sue Robinson will give to precedence in regards to how owners have violated the Personal Conduct policy.

Outcome aside, I hope this begins the trend of being more judicial. This inconsistent and hypocritical process used by the NFL has been a joke.

It needs consistency and it needs to apply to owners, players and coaches equally. I think everyone can agree on that.

I didn't think of that. It's worth contemplating, but I think that it's the 4 cases they feel are the strongest. But, that's just my opinion. You could be right.

NFL, NFLPA briefs due today in Deshaun Watson case

Posted by Mike Florio on July 11, 2022, 10:26 AM EDT
link


The hearing ended 11 days ago. At some point today, the NFL and NFL Players Association will be submitting their written paperwork to Judge Sue L. Robinson regarding the question of whether Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson should, or shouldn’t, be suspended.

It’s technically called a post-hearing brief. It’s a common step in a situation like this, where one person hears the evidence, determines the facts, and applies the relevant law (here, the NFL’s Personal Conduct Policy) to those facts.

Judge Robinson eventually will make a decision. She will (or at least should) prepare a lengthy, written ruling that identifies the specific things that she believes happened, or doesn’t believe happened. She will (or at least should) explain carefully how the policy does, or doesn’t, point to discipline.

The league will (or at least should) make her entire written ruling available for review by fans and media. (Since it doesn’t involve a team or an owner, the league probably will.)

A decision could come at any time. I’ll be watching the week of July 25, with the possibility of a decision coming on Friday, July 22. If she generates a ruling too quickly, it may seem rushed. She needs the public to understand and accept her findings and reasoning. Part of achieving that is to wait just long enough so that people will believe that she spent enough time working on it.

A settlement also could come at any time. As someone said last week, an agreed resolution isn’t likely while the lawyers are running the hourly meter on generating the written briefs. Once the paperwork is in, maybe the lawyers can bill some time to trying to negotiate a deal.

It still won’t be easy, especially for the league. Above all else, the NFL can’t afford to be perceived as being too lenient with Watson. Judge Robinson’s decision will give the league cover, if she decides that he shouldn’t be punished to the extent that the NFL wants him to be punished.

And, yes, public reaction is critical. The entire Personal Conduct Policy apparatus is a P.R. tool. The vast majority of American employers do not discipline or discharge employees based on off-duty misconduct. As long as the employee is able to show up for work (and isn’t, you know, in prison), it’s not the employer’s business.

The NFL, with the agreement of the NFLPA, has made off-duty behavior its business, because it believes fans will be less enthusiastic about paying for tickets or watching games if the NFL shrugs at players, coaches, executive, owners, etc. who do things while not at work that result in arrests or charges or allegations or some combination of the three.

This will be the first application of the new procedure crafted by the league and union in 2020. And, as it was under the old procedure, Commissioner Roger Goodell continues to have final say — unless Judge Robinson finds that Watson shouldn’t be disciplined at all.

If you'll notice, I'm generally using it as a rebuttal to those claiming that somehow the settlement as evidence that it's the women who look bad because they settled. There's two sides to that coin and You haven't seemed to find any objection to those painting the opposite picture.


Here's what I understand. He sought out 66 massage therapists in an 18 month time period. The Texans were so concerned with reports they had heard about his conduct, they even provided him with NDA's for the therapists to sign just to keep their mouths shut. 24 such therapists reported inappropriate behavior on his part.

pred·a·tor

1.
an animal that naturally preys on others.
"wolves are major predators of rodents"

2.a person or group that ruthlessly exploits others.
"a website frequented by sexual predators"


Somehow people think that time stands still. That society never changes. That somehow the fact that the NFL didn't address past mistreatment of women seriously enough is the perfect excuse not to address it properly now. That won't work anymore since the MLB said, "Hold my beer".

It's not a big deal, but I think Tretter is right that the briefs are due this week rather than today as Florio's headline claims. That's not to say they won't be delivered today, but I am pretty sure she said it was the week of July 11th.

Nobody is supposed to be bashing their heads. I just imagined that people who thought a long suspension was appropriate would feel strong feelings about an NFL source talking about preponderance of evidence after having reportedly putting forward no evidence of coercion. I feel like I'm missing something here, and my previous posts were honest requests for help in understanding.