DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum watson-suspended-6-games 2

I don't think that the NFL would like me to be the arbiter. Here is the ruling I would give:

I would say to the NFL:
The CBA states clearly that owners would be held to a higher standard. You have 14 days to retroactively punish Mr Kraft and Mr Snyder. Once you do that I will then levy an equivalent punishment on Mr Watson.

Otherwise the 6 game suspension stands with the addition of a $17 million fine - this fine is determined by his 5 yr/$250 million contract divided by 85 regular season games (5 years worth of games) multiplied by the 6 games he is suspended -> it is actually $17 million and change but I rounded down because he would still lose game checks

It was Haslam, 100%. I have no idea how anyone can make a declaration otherwise... especially after Deshaun declined our first offer and Baker was packing his bags. That doesn't mean the rest of the FO didn't want to do it, every time I say this, a select few posters equate it to Berry and Stefanski not being on-board. Not saying that at all. It just means they easily became "yes men" when they realized the insulation and job security of this being Haslam's poker game. Jimmy writes the checks, period. They are not even entertaining the idea of their "four-month-saga-due-diligence" without his approval.

Yes to "scorched earth". I was coming here to type the same words... and wondering the whole time if Roger would even care. He seems like he would just kiss his pinky ring and move on regardless of the ish-show, probably having enjoyed the limelight through the process anyway.

Should be quite a ride.

===================

As to the first part of Oober's post. Not picking on you bud, many have said it, but 5-10-15 looks great on paper. Assuming any QB will be your FQB for 10 years is a bit of a stretch in this league. Just look squarely at the long list of young QBs that lost that criteria simply due to injury. A lot of factors play into that being true and is far from a given.

My punishment would be to make him play all games in 2022 with nothing but a small towel over his junk and a helmet on top.

That's fair, my point was more general that the move to bring Watson in here wasn't just for the next 1-2 years, and I think the trade and contract bear that out.

I don't think I've ever been adverse to a disagreement. I don't think my response indicated that I was.

I state my opinions very aggressively, but I don't care if people agree with me or not. I also enjoy making fun of people who get all emotional about my opinions. But I don't care if someone has a difference of opinion. I don't think I've ever attacked anyone personally because of it unless I've just reached the end of my rope with ignorance. Go back to all the Baker stuff last year. I was just giving my opinion on Baker and all the Baker fans got very angry at me. Made it personal. But I don't think I ever made it personal back. If I did, it's just a message board. At the end of the day, who cares.

I think two things are being overplayed with Watson. Time missed and lost draft picks. I don't think either will end up mattering.

I also don't think we would have gone anywhere with Baker. And this may surprise you, but I'm pulling for him somewhat this year. I would like to see him perform well and resurrect his career. I don't think he's long for the league because of maturity and work ethic issues, but a change of scenery could be just what the doctor ordered. I don't think those things would have been able to be corrected here. It's just like a bad relationship that the only option is to move on from.

I hope I’m modern and not ignorant and stupid but when I view Watson I see him as a NFL QB, not a black NFL QB. When I judge the owners I see wealthy almost untouchable owners, not wealthy white owners. I understand those of you that for historical reasons see this differently and feel strongly about the hypocrisy and injustice but from a perspective as a white privileged Scandinavian man I can intellectually understand what you’re saying but I probably don’t have the same emotional disappointment and anger.

That’s on me so you have every right to criticize my ignorance if you think I’m miss your point.

I know brah, you were just setting the franchise mindset, and you're entirely correct. Launched from your post mainly to talk about your other points, but after reading from many others, day after day, "we'll have an elite FQB for 10 years +"... just wanted to throw in my two cents, since that seems to be some safety net for justifying the enormous shift of assets and it is anything but fact.

What would derail it? Injury? What else? I guess I'm not following the line of thought. Short of banishment or injury, why wouldn't we be set at QB for 10 years?

There's a chance he's not as good as people think he is (I'm somewhat in that camp), but he'd have to fall pretty low for the Browns to even consider moving on from him. He could always hate it here and request a trade. I don't know ... those seem far fetched at this stage.

Weird take, especially since you could apply the same logic to Baker had he been extended.

Yeah, the 15 years part was probably a bit too far. He's pretty young, though. I just looked and he's had some injuries (not sure if some of those were from college or not), but 2 tears and a sprain for the knees is not gonna be a + for the longevity column.

It's impossible to be 100% factual when making a prediction, but I think saying that it was a terrible trade because a guy misses a year or close to it is a far more bizarre statement than one saying we will have a franchise qb for a decade or so.

But, it's Dawg Talkers...

Which has zero to do with anything once again. So you think that the NFL can think up every crazy scenario there is and predict the future? You seem to conveniently forget or purposefully omit that this is nothing more than a contract between employees and employers. Both sides agreed to and signed this contract between the NFL and the NFLPA. Your contention seems to be that we should now not expect the players to live up to the very contract they signed because you know, "not fair" If you would like to make some kind of credible point here, please show where other corporations spell out every detail of conduct their employees can receive punishment for in terms of their conduct. Much like the NFL other corporations take each case individually and act accordingly.

Claiming a six game suspension was fair to any of his victims is what I find to be laughable. Anyone who reads Sue Robinson's report and doesn't think a suspension of far more than six games is called for is looking at this through Browns goggles.

As I predicted, since they can't uphold watson they'll attack Buzzbee..... again. They somehow that's a way to make watson's victims less credible. As you posted, that story has already been debunked. But anything they can cling to at this point to throw shade on the other side, they will.

So what's a fair punishment?

So now even you have decided to believe everything planted in the Twitterverse that supports what you want to believe? Sad, just sad.

I'd be behind that 100% !

Yes, it has nothing to do with justice for multiple victims. Even after seeing all of the things Robinson found in her report, you still act like watson is the victim. Shameful.

He's being punished. What more do you want? Tarred and feathered? Public stoning? Firing squad!?

What is a fair punishment?

Would the towel color match that week's pants color or jersey color?

I asked a question earlier and still have not gotten answer from anyone. But what exactly is watson accused of doing?

She felt her decision was based on constraints of previous cases. That seems to be the only reason for it only being six games. Reading her report, based on that only, do you really think six games is the proper punishment? Let's recap.....

Sexual assault, predatory, liar, no remorse, endangering his victims, egregious......

You know better.

Pot meet kettle.

Fair punishment would have been zero games w/perhaps a fine. The same amount of games that Kraft, Snyder, and Jones received for violating the Personal Conduct Policy.

Having said that, I was okay w/Judge Robinson's decision. I think she tried to act fairly. The problem occured when the NFL caved in to the angry mob and chose to simply ignore a female former Federal Judge on her very first case.

I wonder if she will resign from her position as the Disciplinary Officer? The NFL is totally disrespecting her decision. But, she is a woman and they probably don't think females are qualified to make decisions and the important stuff needs to be handled by men.

Thank you for your meaningless attempt to fight. You have said nothing in your response other than you need to fight.

Have a good day.

I think she was in bed with the NFL from the very beginning and not only welcomed the appeal but cued it up for the NFL.

1. She told them a month ago what the outcome would be allowing them to get a head start on preparing the appeal. I think also this had Watson's team let their guard down somewhat. I bet they are scrambling.
2. She wrote the ruling in a way to support an appeal by the NFL.
3. I think the only reason she didn't give him more games was due to her belief that her ruling had to be bound by past punishments, but she wanted to give more.

It was basically a sham. I agree that the NFL should have accepted it, but I don't think that Robinson cares. I thought she would before the ruling came out, but I think she's on the side of the NFL.

If I were the NFLPA, I would be pretty livid, but this is what they agreed to. They're idiots. It's their own fault.

Saying it is not a FACT that Watson will be our FQB for the next 10-15 years is a weird take? That's an instant classic.

He may not be that great.
He may get injured.
He may be a serial predator.
He may get butthurt with the organization like he did at his last job.
He may go to a higher bidder since we may qualify for "cap hell" by the time that next contract comes up.

Got any morsel of information that says it's a FACT that he will be here 10+ years? Also, while you're digging, show me some that 34-35-36-37-38 year old Deshaun Watson will still be an elite QB? That's where we start the second contract.

Not sure if this was your intention, but I'd be careful putting the word 'justice' too close to the NFL in this situation. You and I both know the NFL has no more interest in justice than Watson, and if justice is done in this case it's only due to coincidence. Robinson said that too in her report. Watson is definitely not the victim, and probably does deserve more/different than what precedent has set. What that is is up for debate. All I know is I don't trust the NFL with their conduct policy any more than I do Watson in a room with a massage therapist.

Sorry for hijacking your question but this question is very good.

IMHO I think there’re two important things that heavily works against Watson getting a totally fair punishment for his actions.

1. His unwillingness to accept guilt and accountability.
2. That the Browns gave him a monster contract with so much guaranteed money.

I’m 100% sure that if he had immediately accept accountability, asap made settlements with a as many women as possible and accept some sort of guilt then the public opinion had been totally different.

I’m also 100% sure that the $230m contract, they way the Browns constructed the conditions made things 100 times worse and only worked as fuel to the fire.

Without these two factors then I think the public opinion (and probably me) would easily had accepted a 8-12 games suspension. Give and take. With the current circumstances 6 games seems to be unfairly and maybe 12 games and a hefty fine is the floor for the broad majority to accept without going bananas.

Maybe I’m totally unsynchronized with the rest but I think that a small portion of the punishment is also a slap on the wrist against the Browns FO. Wherever I read and listen people don’t exactly have a favorable opinion about our current leadership/owners, to put it mildly.

I agree it's not a fact. It's just a weird stance to take. All of the reasons you listed except for the sexual predator one would be applicable if we had traded for Watson and his only baggage was he didn't want to play for the Texans anymore. Are you saying you wouldn't have made the trade because it's not a fact that he will be the franchise QB for the next 10 to 15 years even under that scenario?

You could apply that logic to any player...drafted or traded for. You could apply it to Baker had we extended him.

Why are those reasons specific to Watson?

1. She told both sides a month ago. I think this lends credence to the theory of her trying to get them to come to a settlement.
2. This has been argued both ways. Part of her report was detailing how the conduct policy is a joke and a sham, and the NFL practically took that as marching orders.
3. I think she did want to give more but within the bounds of the process/contract, she could not. This is the weird part for me. If your designated officer says this is what the process allows you to do, and your response is to toss out her decision and put it in the hands of the guy who helped write and construct the old policy that this one was supposed to fix... then yes, it's absolutely a sham.

Something that actually addresses what was found to be true. Sexual assault, endangering his victims, predatory, lying the entire time, no remorse and egregious conduct.

I'm not trying to say how severe the punishment should be but it's easy for anyone to see that six games is woefully insufficient. So is the very low amount of money he would lose out of a 230 million dollar contract. If anything would constitute a sham this would be it.

Maybe if people would try putting what these women endured at the hands of watson over their fandom for just a minute that wouldn't be hard for them to see.

Instead, they attack the NFL, the victims lawyers and any other straw they can grasp at. Hell, for the longest time they blamed the victims as being liars, pretty much prostitutes and just about any other ugly thing you can imagine. Now they're acting like a basic slap on the wrist should be considered a fair punishment. They're acting like the very process that the NFLPA agreed to is a witch hunt and not fair. There are even people acting as if this is some kind of vendetta against the Browns. All in an effort to try and shift the focus away from watson's behavior to blame everyone other than watson and the Browns brass for being idiots and a sexual predator that put them in the very position they're in now.

Their contention seems to be that the NFL got it wrong for so long that justifies continuing to get it wrong. That because players were punished well below what they should have been in the past, the NFL should continue that pattern. They act like increasing penalties in such cases to reflect the actual damage done to the victims is a terrible thing. People throughout our nation's history have fought against it when our society has made changes to accurately reflect and represent people whom have been wronged in the past. In this case it's women being victimized by sexual abuse in sports.

This is just an opinion, but I don't think the Judge was "in bed" w/the NFL. I think she listened to the evidence that both sides gave to her, which was circumstantial. I don't think she made a "legal" ruling, but a ruling on whether or not Watson violated the conditions of the Personal Conduct Policy. She then used precedence to help set the number of games. I think she was fair in what she was given.

People confusing this w/an actual legal trial confound me.

I'll say one thing, I'm kinda surprised Robinson's judgement didn't include therapy requirement. She went as far as to restrict his massage therapy practices from here on out, but didn't not address his behavior. I find that kinda weird. I would think therapy would be kind of a no-brainer.

I was also surprised she didn't include a monetary fine, but IIRC she addressed that as well in her report.

Maybe I don't speak for everyone, but pointing out how the NFL is a joke in this situation is not a defense of Watson. The way I see it, there are separate, if parallel, conversations going on regarding Watson (what he did and what he deserves) and the NFL and its handling of its own personal conduct policy. The funny thing for me is that the Watson conversation is kinda done now. Robinson put in her report the closest thing to the unvarnished truth that we're going to get, and I accept that. What's now unfolding is the NFL's sham process that, when you really look at it, is no different that what it was before. Now it just takes longer and involves more people and drama.

Be it by coincidence or any other method, the punishment should reflect the egregious, sexually predatory conduct of the assailant upon these victims. I'm not as concerned about the methodology, the motive or the players involved in the process as I am the situation being given the full weight of a punishment that's deserved.

I mean let me point out yet one more thing here. Hardin, Watson's attorney claimed watson was innocent. That they would fight every case in court. Now those are proven to be lies without any controversy involved. Yet you never hear a word about him being a liar. Yet when it comes to Buzzbee they try and use every rumor and report from second hand sources as being factual to attack him.

I could be wrong, but it just feels that way to me.

Regardless, the hope that it would end with her decision didn't happen, and the real ones paying the price are Browns fans.

Bring on another wasted year.

Well I guess when that's all you have left in the tank......

Are you related to Vers?