DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Worst trade ever...

You don't have a clue about reading defenses. You are pulling things out of your behind because you are mad the Browns moved on from Baker.

Where did I claim that I believed Watson cannot read a defense? You are the only poster on here who pulls Baker thoughts out of his own behind.

It's kind of hard not to compare the two when you start off w/saying you think Baker was good enough to win the championship with and then proceed to trash Watson. Please answer this, tab.

If Baker was "good enough" why didn't any teams want to trade for him until we had to agree w/Carolina to pay a large part of his contract? Why did the Browns want to move on from him in the first place. Why did only one team claim him off of waivers? Why is ranked at the bottom of the qb rankings while being healthy?

Why were multiple team willing to sell the farm for Watson if he isn't all that? Why did he receive such a large contract if he isn't very good?

This worst trade ever link became a Baker vs Watson...and the trades to make that happen....OK.

Chubb might be best O player, but PLEASE don't forget he got STUFFED multiple times- as stated before, we must pass and run to do either well. It IS a passing league. Watson, minus the rust, is FAR superior to the best of Baker. There is a reason Baker has BOUNCED from team to team....he may, but probably won't EVER start in the league as THE MAN for any other team. Time will tell.

Baker will never sit down as a backup in the NFL. He’s proven that twice, asking for a trade here and asking to be released from the Panthers. Maybe he’s learned from his mistakes, maybe not.

We disagree on some things, but I respect your opinion. I will only add that I can support Watson because he was never even tried in a court of law, nevermind found guilty. I am not omniscient. I have no idea what is the truth and what is not the truth. I am not asking you to agree w/me about that, but I don't really want to get into that here because it's not "Pure Football."

Anyways, I continue to pray for you and I truly wish you the best in your continued health issues.

I’d say it’s a toss up between Watson and Big Ben. Difference being the penalty handed out to DW was twice as much. BTW, Jim Brown’s character wasn’t spotless. Lot’s of bad hombres go through the NFL. Most straighten themselves out. A few don’t.

Ray Carruth, Michael Vick, Ben R and Pacman Jones agree.

Which is a very odd thing for you to be saying..... now.

You see, before the hearing entrusted to Judge Sue Robinson, we both claimed we would honor her decision. But you seem be confused about what that means or have decided to accept the part you choose to accept and dismiss the rest. Because the punishment phase of her ruling is based on her findings. Without finding what and if someone did something wrong, there is no punishment. The punishment is nothing more than the end result of the findings which is actually what the decision made is solely based on.

I kept my word and accepted her findings as I said I would. In their entirety. You on the other hand have chosen to pick and choose which part of her decision to accept and which part to cast aspersions on.

If you choose to accept her finding, then he has now fulfilled his punishment and there should be a forgiveness stage. That was not the law of the land trial so to speak. That was a ruling that stated in the NFL's eyes did he commit conduct detrimental to the league. In the law of the country, we live in he was never found guilty because they did not find enough evidence to prosecute. Now he seems to have been tried and convicted in the jury of public opinion but not in a jury of his peers. There is a difference. As far as the NFL goes, he has now doe his time and we should all move on.

Forgiveness is earned not given. I have heard nothing from watson asking for forgiveness or an apology. Talk to me after that happens about forgiveness. I'm simply pointing out who made the claim they would accept her decision and who is and is not honoring their word in that regard. You can spin her ruling any way you like, But she described exactly what she found him having done. After which she concluded those actions broke the NFL personal conduct policy. Like I said, some people like to include the parts they want to and ignore the rest.

Nobody is trying to convince you to accept her ruling. There were simply some on this board who said they would. I know both myself and Vers were.

People are entitled to believe what they want to believe. I chose to believe an experienced judge who actually heard all of the evidence. That too is my choice.

Pit likes to speak for other people and their intentions because he likes to fight. I did accept Sue Robinson's ruling, which was six games. However, trying to imply that Sue Robinson was the judge in a court of law in this case is an outright lie. The ruling was in regards to whether or not Watson violated the NFL's Personal Conduct Code. It did not go on Watson's legal record. He is not on file as a sexual predator. He did not serve jail time. He never even went to a legal trial in an actual court of law. There are just a few guys that try to make this something it is not and Pit is typically at the center of such things.

I didn't make any claim she was a judge in a court of law in this case. I claimed you said you would accept her decision when in fact you only accept the punishment. There is no punishment without ruling on the facts of the case. I'm sorry you wish to blame me for something you chose to do which was to choose the accept the punishment while rejecting everything else. That's not what you said you would do but the decision didn't work the way you wanted it to. So you decided to accept the punishment but not what he was actually punished for. That's not my issue. You can stoplying by making the claim I tried to say, or even imply this was a court of law.

We both knew and know it wasn't a court of and and nothing I have said here in any way implies that. But we both agreed to accept her decision, not just the part of it we agreed with. I did and you didn't.

None of your lies or temper tantrums will change any of that.

I have said I accepted her decision dozens of time. You just want to fight so you run around me making up things that are false.

Just to throw a wrench into this, the NFL chose not to except her ruling, would that not make her ruling null and void?

The punishment phase is not the decision. This isn't complicated. The punishment phase is only the end of the process. There is no punishment without the finding of what someone is being punished for and the conduct that is the reasoning for the punishment. I understand how your desire to deny that requires you to blame someone else for pointing it out, claiming that's their fault because they want to fight and acting as though it isn't true. That's a you issue.

Well, the NFL sure as hell did not accept her ruling. Also, Pit and others did not accept her initial ruling and wanted the punishment increased.

For the record........I said I would accept her ruling and have done so. However, that is in terms of his punishment w/the NFL. Legally speaking, I would not accept any ruling that was not done in a court of law. I believe in our system. It has flaws, but it's the best we have. It sure beats witch hunts. And here is the kicker that no one has bothered to explore because they want to win an argument. Had Sue Robinson ruled that Watson deserved no punishment and did not come close to doing anything wrong......I would have not said that proves Watson's innocence.

Truth is that I have no idea what the truth is or isn't. He might be innocent. He might be guilty. I don't know and will not judge his innocence or guilt if it hasn't been proven in a court of law.

Not wanting to fight? LMAO..........You come on here every single day and rarely do you have an original thought. Instead, you attack the opinions of other posters as if you are some sort of judge on what is right and not. It screams of a miserable person w/a fragile ego. Constantly belittling others to prove how great you are. We would all be better off if you just posed your opinions on the matter instead of belittling multiple posters day in and day out. Carry on, but I'm done w/you.

You were replying to yourself, right?

Here you have exchanged the words "her decision" with "her ruling". Even so, her ruling includes her finding of the facts. You have no punishment without the facts you have determined that you base the punishment upon. You still can't seem to comprehend that part can you?

I accepted her punishment although I didn't think it was severe enough based on the facts she stated that the punishment was based on. You know, acting in a predatory manner and egregious conduct he perpetrated on these women. By throwing out his version of events she took the word of those women over the word of watson. So she obviously didn't believe him either.

I was happy the NFL increased the suspension however. It felt far more fitting according to what Judge Sue Robinson found the facts of the case to be.

You know there used to be a poster on here who claimed he gave the counterpoints in these discussions. Then he left for a long time. Oh wait, that was you. Were you just trying to fight? You crack me up.

They accepted her ruling but didn't accept the eventual punishment, which she herself said was not enough; however, NFL precedent dictated it. As far as I know, the entire football world accepted her ruling, including her use of the word predator. The only people I see denying that have some DW fetish where star QBs can assault women, and it doesn't count.

Who are those people? I haven't seen anyone post anything of the sort on here.

Talking heads' reactions when the report came out.

JC



Are we back on this again?

This is really even more simple than the rest of your post(s).... there is one person who has listened and adjudicated over al the evidence. That person is a highly respected former judge. She heard the case against Watson, not in a court of law but as an independent arbitrator. She literally lambasted Watson in her ruling and tore him a new one, and she highlighted he has shown no remorse for his actions and she summarized his behavior as having exhibited predatory behavior and had committed sexual assault as defined by the NFL.

Debating the length of suspension or any other aspect of this is a deflection of the facts. One respected judged heard the evidence and came to an unambiguous decision and branding of what Watson was guilty of. End of story.

Anyone defecting from this and saying there is any doubt of what Watson is most probably guilty of is lying to you or lying to themselves. Period. There's no real reason to keep talking about it - but here we are with folks sort of trying to debate the definition of the word "is" as a means to deflect.

Can't get any clearer than that - Thanks 888

Yes, they won't stop. Same few people over and over and over again.

That is like the pot calling the kettle black tenfold!

The funny thing is, for most of us 'Baker Boys', we've moved on and are just trying to have honest discussions about our concerns. But if you say anything remotely negative or question DW's greatness, then you can expect Vers to rush to his defense and attack you, demean you, or talk about you in the third party as if he is not directing what he is saying at you. Maybe next year we can all start on the same page. But it's beginning to look like things will be this way for a few years.

Yep, it's a fan forum where each person is supposed to be able to post opinions about the Cleveland Browns. Of course, that opinion better fall within the guidelines of the chosen one or you can expect attacks, and just plain nastiness, The funny part is if your opinion happens to contain undisputable facts, you can expect to be threatened to be blocked. Works out well most of the time because you can then move on to another topic without being immediately attacked unless you get a group agreeing with your post then it's like waking up a hibernating angry bear.

It's not just legit criticism of DW - I've seen legit criticism of Stefanski similarly dismissed and the name calling and "Baker Boys" deflection similarly used.

tab, I did not want to answer your earlier question because I knew the board bullies would come out w/more personal attacks, but I did reply to you because you asked respectfully and I've been worried about you. However, I am going to bow out of this conversation due to the aforementioned posters who want to fight and demean others. You can PM me if you like and we can talk.

Yet you made a comment about it before I did. Funny how all you have is deflection for the very same thing you did. You helped open the door and I responded. At least be honest about it this time.

Oh the irony!

The worst trade ever? Not even close to Paul Warfield to Miami for a #1 pick, which we used on Mike Phipps, who did ok we did make the playoffs with him, but he was average at best while Warfields bust is in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, Now that's a trade no one has ever forgotten ...

True enough.

But future trades with Phipps ended up netting us Newsome.

Strange how things go.