https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/01/sports/football/deshaun-watson-nfl-discipline.html

https://www.foxnews.com/sports/desh...rs-quarterback-faces-six-game-suspension

The NFL and Texas have different definitions of sexual assault

Bottom line - you don't know if he coerced women into sexual activity involving penetration or not. Posters said they would live by the ruling by Sue Robinson. Here's some of what she said -

Involving accusations of Sexual Misconduct and Assault per the NFL's policy - Watson is guilty.
His actions were more egregious than ANY other case before the NFL.
He lied and continues to lie about what happened.
He acted in a predatory fashion regarding these sexual assaults/misconduct ... people are trying to split hairs - but if you act like a predator while committing sexual transgressions that makes you a sexual predator.

There's more to what she said - but this is sort of the crux of the issues for me. DW was not the victim of a witch hunt - the women were not all lying - this wasn't some invention of the Cleveland Media and fan base.

No wonder many want to gloss over or ignore completely the details and want to pretend like 6 games and this ruling is what they expected and we should all move on and talk about something different. No wonder so many are name calling and trying so hard to shout down anyone still talking about what Watson ha done and what it means moving forward.

j/c:

A couple of things.

--Not sure why Texas law has to do w/the NFL?

--Several posters who have mentioned their daughters and/or wives. My wife is a Steeler fan and has had very little to say about Watson. My daughter is a huge Browns fan. Both my wife and daughter are strong advocates for women. Before my daughter and her husband opened up their business, she was a physical therapist. She often lamented about how women had a much tougher path to the top in her field. She is an active member in several women's rights groups and charities. She was a bit uncomfortable when we first signed Watson, but has changed her tune as more information came out. She texted our group after the news of Watson's suspension and was satisfied w/it. I texted back about the NFL appealing. Her immediate reaction was: "So they put a female in charge of discipline and she is a former judge, but a man w/no legal experience can overrule her?" She went on to say this is "Just another slap in the face for women." I think what is tricky here is that people will argue like she did and others will argue that it's a slap in the face to women if the NFL doesn't increase the suspension.

--What kills me is that posters--and much of the public--seemed okay w/Judge Robinson making the decision. Almost everyone said it's better than Goodell handling it. Now, after Judge Robinson has determined that a 6-game suspension is what's fair, people don't want to accept her decision and are demanding that Goodell increase the suspension. It's freaking hypocritical especially considering that Judge Robinson is far more qualified to rule on such things than Goodell is.

Be sure to let us know when/how that actually matters in any way whatsoever.

Aside from that, Texas is completely screwed up if penetration is required in the definition of sexual assault.

Not sure if it matters if posters feel a different suspension is justified or not - no-one is going to have an impact on the decision Goodell makes. Shouting people down and trying to silence their opinions because you don't agree with them doesn't seem in keeping with the board's purpose.

I'm less worried about the suspension period than I am with the verification of what DW did - what that makes him. Some people have tried to pass this off as he's just "creepy" - but that's not what Sue Robinson said. Some said this was a witch hunt - Robinson verified that's not what this was.

You mean the intended purpose, not the actual right?

j/c:

One good thing for those of us still rooting for the Browns is that after being the lead story the last two days, they haven't talked about Watson during the first hour. It's been the Dolphin story number one, the Cowboys, Tom Brady, and Vin Scully.

Maybe, the attention on the Dolphins is actually a good thing for Watson and the Browns? Maybe it's taking the heat off of them.

Why did the 1st accuser wait for so long to go to the authorities
Why didnt she report the matter or file a report that next day?

Why ask questions that have nothing to do with anything?
Why do we have a Statute of Limitations?

How prophetic was this?

My point being is, if these women were truly "traumatized"
Wouldnt they as soon as they could go to the police
And file a sexual assault ?
If somebody vandalized your vehicle or stole your wallet
Would you wait to take action ......no....you within 30 mins
Are talking to the local PD cause you have,been
Violated and wronged.
Another question that hasnt been asked to my knowledge

How many of the massage therapists are still in the industry?

The NFL purposefully got the Dolphins story out there to lessen the heat on the Watson news IMO. Whether or not they wanna drag it back up and appeal is up to them.

Your point is victim shaming women because you like a football player.

Have any of them been found guilty of what you alledge by a Judge? That was your standard for Watson, why are you changing it now?

Making false statements to police is a crime. Have they been indicted? Have they been charged? You agree your point is silly then, right?

Tend to agree with almost everything you said.

One clarification though... Robinson stated Watson's case was the most egregious for non-violent sexual conduct. Not the most egregious in NFL history.

At first I thought the timing of the Dolphins' punishment to take away the sting of the NFLPA's claim that owners don't get punished for violating the Personal Conduct Policy and that still may be true..........but man, the discussions were heated today about the Dolphins in regards not only to tampering, but also tanking. That also brought race into it because of the Flores suit and the dumb comments by Miami's owner.

The result is that a ton of attention has been taken away from Watson and the Browns. That's a good thing for us who want him to play.

Nobody should be surprised here. This is the NFL consistent response to their highly paid sexual predators. Slap em on the wrist. Play on.

[/quote]

The result is that a ton of attention has been taken away from Watson and the Browns.[/quote]

Lol, i thought you said you're married. Women havent shifted attention from this disgusting chain of events.

While this was going on the focus should have been on Watson, for whatever actions led him to over 20 lawsuits and the Browns for making such a ridiculous offer to someone with so much uncertainty hanging over their head. I've always thought he did not have to be guilty to question his decision making that got him into his predicament in the first place. And questioning the Browns actions in this should be an obvious given.

Now I believe the focus needs to be on the NFL for not having the framework in place to deal with these kinds of issues properly. I feel the Texans should have been giving Watson help, not gag orders to hand out. There is no doubt in my mind the Texans did not help the player, only attempted to protect their image and his. Yes Watson is an adult and able to make his own decisions but the Texans enabled him to make poor ones that should have been working to stop. There is a text out there, which I believe is from someone in the organization, stating that they make all of his appointments "because of issues like this". So far the Texans have escaped public scrutiny for the most part, but the NFL should create rules to stop it from happening again.

The NFL also needs to quickly revisit it's 'punishment' guidelines. The Judge said as things are written now she can only give him 6 games. As a Browns fan I would have preferred that she could have suspended him the whole season but felt he deserved only 6 games. Instead it looks like she would have given him more but was tied by poor Policy and he only gets 6 games, which is a very poor optic.

[quoteInvolving accusations of Sexual Misconduct and Assault per the NFL's policy - Watson is guilty.
His actions were more egregious than ANY other case before the NFL.[/quote]

I just want to make sure that you and others understand she is saying this is the most egregious of the alleged non-violent sexual misconduct cases ever heard by the NFL. It isn't the most egregious case ever heard.

There is a BIG difference there. I think some are missing the context the judge is giving.

The suspension was the highest given for similar alleged cases.

Some people read what they want to read and don't pay attention to what is being said.

JMO

Agreed w/your take.

I want to add this just for thought for those who have not made their mind up one way or the other. When the GJ twice refused to indict Watson, we were told repeatedly on here that that did not indicate Watson's innocence. Now, those same people are telling us that an investigation that was handled by the NFL proves that Watson is guilty.

That isn't logical, in my opinion. It sounds more like people having their minds made up and believing what they choose to believe rather looking for the truth.

You nailed it, prp...concerning the Texas laws, they are 'completely screwed up'..!

The Grand Jury decisions not to prosecute Watson gave everyone a hint about how Texas laws works...that's why I have not put much stock in the claim that Watson was exonerated by the Texas Grand Jury decisions.


"Texas Law"....made by Texas men to protect Texas men...!



Regardless of the arguments being made since Judge Robinson made her decision and as I said when she announced her decision...it comes down to..."what will Roger do"...?

Just so you know, it is steve who continually brings up Texas law to the conversation and he wants Watson to be severely punished.

She said that his actions were more egregious than any case involving non-violent sexual assault in the NFL before. There is a HUGE difference between what you said and what she actually said on that point.

Like I said before, Watson is a creep. I liken his actions to creepy guy that makes unwanted advances towards women and "feels them up." Repulsive behavior, especially when using his status as an NFL QB to commit these actions. He definitely deserves to be punished for his actions.

Is this the right punishment? I'd say it's close. I was thinking it would be around 8 games and a hefty fine.

However, many people like to think that Watson forcibly raped these women. That was never proven - in fact, the NFL never tried to argue the point that he forced or coerced anyone of the women to do anything. They had no evidence of it. People like to make these things black and white, but there is obviously varying degrees of "sexual assault" which require varying degrees of punishments.

As I said before, Robinson said it was "indisputable" that his actions did not meet the threshold that required a minimum 6-game suspension for violent sexual assault. That is pretty strong language.

And for those who want the details of Robinson's finding to be buried. As it works out, those are usually the same people.

Really?

Why don't you ask the 70% of women who are victims of rape and sexual assault who never report the event to ANYONE?

You ask those questions as if somehow they are relevant. They are meaningless, except in your mind because you appear to want to ignore Sue Robinson's findings and what DW did.

I agree with your thought process as an overall - 10,000 ft view of the situation. As a Browns fan I am more concerned with the guy found guilty of sexual assault and misconduct who is the face of our franchise.

Nobody is ignoring the findings. She levied her opinion and set a 6 game suspension.

That is all one really needs to know.

It's quite logical. In the first instance a judge never heard and weighed the evidence as it pertains to a finding of guilt or innocence. In the second case a judge did. Try again.

And still it continues. Judge Robinson found him to be guilty of sexual assault and some people are still saying what a judge found to be sexual assault is only creepy. Sad, just sad.

Agreed. The opinion was levied by the judge. Almost universally, people said they preferred her ruling on this rather than Goodell. I thought 6 games was excessive, but I completely accept her decision. Now, we have folks who aren't willing to accept the decision of a female judge and are lobbying for Goodell to overrule that female judge and increase Watson's punishment.

Funny - you said you'd accept Sue Robinson's findings. But here you are trying to deflect and do anything but accept what she said regards DW being guilty, still lying, showing no remorse and acting like a predator. . . . . all the while trying to drown any opinion that doesn't mirror your own.

She even got in to how fair notice is needed if rules are going to be changed because of public outcry. You can't just make them to meet your needs. You can't just make them up and apply them as you go.

That is what she meant when she said “The NFL may be a ‘forward-facing’ organization, but it is not necessarily a forward-looking one,” .

A grand jury's Opinion that it isn't good enough for trial based on the evidence before it would still carry the same weight.

Acting like the Grand Jury is "more right" is really a red herring though. Watson was judged guilty by a preponderance of the evidence, which is a different standard. Which most reasonable people guessed would be the likely outcome from the start.

Noted and agreed - Pen said the same thing. Sorry I wasn't typing out the exact quote and paraphrasing, I didn't mean to give the wrong context of what Sue said.

As for your suggestion DW is just a creep - the rest of what Sue Robinson said indicated that's absolutely not the case. It went far, far beyond just being creepy. But if you want to minimize what he did and the conclusion of the only person who heard the evidence and what she stated - that's your prerogative.

This comment was based only on the NFL wanting a stricter punishment, not a finding of guilt however, for clarity.

As the only person to have heard the evidence, as an experienced Judge - Sue Robinson's "opinion" that Watson acted as a sexual predator (you can't act like a predator without being one btw) - that he lied, that he's shown no remorse, that some,many, most or all of the allegations against him were founded .... that all matters.

The 6 games is the result - and maybe that's all you care about? But there are many others that have a different perspective.

I actually agree with you. She made it pretty clear while she believed harsher penalties may be justified, she said she couldn't see how she could do it....


That's why the report and its findings are so important. The devil is in the details.

This is correct and unequivocal.
She also would have given a lengthier suspension, but couldn't because it appears that she is actually trying to do her job well and is using precedence already set.


Is anybody even debating all of this? It's in some pretty clear writing directly from her. It'd be fairly difficult to misunderstand what she wrote as she was very articulate.
I mean.... what, exactly, is everyone arguing about anymore? Does anyone even know?

Well yeah, he was creepy.

My take is that some / many are trying to simply move on - accept a 6 game ban and then try to minimize what Sue Robinson actually found DW guilty of (and drown out anyone who wants to comment or talk about what she said in her ruling/findings). There are many statements from Sue Robinson that indicate Watson is so much worse than just "creepy" - and he's the QB and face of the Browns. I think it's important. Others don't want to acknowledge it - we're even back to comments about the grand jury as if that means something (which it doesn't at this point).

What it's come down to is if they actually admit the findings are accurate and what they say is true, they have to admit to what they have been and continue to defend. They would have to admit the actuality of what they will be supporting moving forward. I can understand how and why they would resist that.

Trying to minimize and refusing to admit what the actual findings say is the only path they've left themselves with at this point.

She found him guilty of sexual assault as defined by the NFL on the day of the hearing. That is correct.

Another form of "sexual assault" as defined by the NFL: Accidentally brushing up against a woman's butt or chest while exiting a crowded elevator.

Obviously, what Watson did was more serious than that, just as other forms of "sexual assault" are more serious than what Sue found Watson guilty of doing.

To paint a picture of "all sexual assault is the same" is very disingenuous. Sue also makes this distinction in her report, as she notes violent and non-violent sexual assault. She said it was indisputable that Watson actions did not fall into the violent category.

Doesn't matter what Robinson ruled...there is one more step in the process to go...what Goodell says..!

"Almost universal"...preferring judge's decision...simply not true..! What do women think about Robinson's ruling..?

Vers...you may not like the "NFL's process"....but we must wait on the final decision in the process.

So by calling watson a creep you mean that non violent sexual assault is only creepy? I didn't say that all sexual assaults are the same. I've actually quoted what the NFL definition was word for word which is what she found him guilty of.

My assertion is that when you minimize such conduct by describing it as "creepy" that's just sad. I stand by that.

Are you really going to jump down his throat because he used the word creepy? Did you not read the rest of his post? He also used the word 'repulsive'.

There's another way to look at that as well. According to some of the summaries, Robinson used the same threshold as what would be used in a civil trial. So the assumption is that if Watson's civil cases ever went to trial, he'd probably be found guilty (at least in 4 of the cases).

So repulsively creepy? You either call it what it is or you don't. It was sexual assault carried out in a predatory fashion. That was the ruling. Dancing around that is exactly what we've been seeing and this example was no different.

I'd argue that you're unfairly leaping past the point that all language was defined by the NFL, and the judge was bound by their "post-hoc definitions". That would be a pretty early box on the flowchart that may prevent predicting what would happen in a court of law. Is it possible his actions would even reach a level of "sexual assault" in many venues?

Again, read his post. He wasn't dancing.

Depends on the location as laws vary from location to location. But in a civil trial sexual assault would not have to be proven for the victims to receive a judgement. That bar far exceeds what would have been needed.

I did. Nowhere in that post did he say watson's actions were sexual assault.

As as has been pointed out in the ruling, public opinion shouldn't matter because the NFL has ruled that way in the past and been very inconsistent in their punishments by making up rules as they go.

I don't mean for this to be cold or insensitive, but it doesn't matter what women think, or you, or I. You have to stick with the rules in place. You can't just change them at will to win some opinion poll.

I don't really disagree with you. I will say it seems odd for Robinson to say this offense was unprecedented and then say she decided to stick with precedent. Those two things don't sound logical when you put them together.

Just a point of clarification to address my nit-noid OCD:

"Guilty" - Criminal Court of Law
"Liable" - Civil Court of Law

Dude, he only reads what he wants to read into things. My second post on this thread literally says he was found guilty of sexual assault.

My main point is that sexual assault is not a good term to use when it can mean anything from pinching someone's butt to forcible rape.

Agreed, and good point. In that case wouldn't it just be a judgement without the finding of guilt? Isn't the criteria there "most likely" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt"?

I just think it's hard to compare the two venues and assume because he was found guilty; by what is basically an arbitrator in a corporate case; the same would hold true in a court of law.

In this case what sexual assault was considered was clearly defined. It couldn't have meant "anything".

If you liken it to an actual court of law, a judge would still be bound by sentencing guidelines.

Robinson is basically dealing with contract law in this case. She's pointed out that their punishment guidelines aren't clear enough for a more severe sentence... and that the NFL was trying to define and impose them after the fact.

His being pragmatic is what I’ve always liked about peen.

Just my opinion - but I think it's more than reasonable that Robinson would not have included the language about Watson (possibly) deserving a harsher judgement - but that the letter of NFL policy and precedent (seems to have) prevented her from handing out a stiffer penalty..... Unless she felt that Watson's actions did indeed go beyond the level of 'Assault' in a civil court. Sue Robinson was pretty damning with what she said about Watson, I don't think she based that criticism only on a low threshold of NFL policy ... where the policy impacted her decision, ruling and findings she seemed to spell that out.

So just when do you move on? If his final punishment is a 6 game suspension and he serves that punishment then yes at that time it should be over. He will more than likely settle the last unresolved civil case, the NFL punishment would then be over, and there are no criminal charges. Just when does this end? Somewhere after a person fulfills their punishment, forgiveness must take place. I did not say you, I, we, must forget what happened. But, there does come a time that forgiveness needs to take place. Especially, after a person fulfills the term of their punishment.

Clearly - but less than a few days after the decision, and before the NFL has decided whether or not to proceed with appealing the penalty is WAY WAY too soon for folks to be drowning out others opinion and telling everyone to hush and move along.

Everything I posted fits the definition of sexual assault as defined in this case. If one of my 2 examples does not fit definition, please say which one.

Everything I stated in that post is truthful.

I think using the term a court of law is an attempt to discount the findings in this case. She also said he had lied throughout. That would mean he's also been committing perjury all along. If anyone actually looks at all of her findings in totality, the case against him is devastating.

And you are certainly right about the difference in the threshold required to find guilt between a criminal and civil case. But everyone knows that when there are only two people involved and it's illegal to film massage therapy, you aren't going to have 8x10 glossy photographs and video footage.

In a case such as this you have an experienced judge who looked at what I've seen reported as thousands of pages of evidence and three days of testimony. Through all of this she determined that watson is a liar. He conducted predatory actions in a manner that ended up resulting in sexual assault. That's a pretty damning conclusion and seems she clearly understands what she was reading and the testimony in front of her. Not pointing this towards you but it seems many who never saw or heard the testimony, never been a judge nor looked into the validity and reputation of this judge wish to try to find any way possible to diminish or undermine her findings.

I could understand people questioning it if it were something that sounded like even a close call. If she had waffled and not found him to have been guilty of all three of the NFL's complaints. But that's not the case here. Not only did she find him guilty on all three of the NFL's complaints, she also made a point to write in her decision that watson was a liar, had no remorse, that his actions were so egregious they were unprecedented. That's certainly not a close call by anyone's definition.

/thread

You just surmised what it's taken me thousands of words to still not fully express.

It is all a matter of contract law. Like you inferred, there are no "sentencing guidelines." For all the words that I'm sure exist in the CBA and cognizant documents, it is rather mute and/or ambiguous in both the areas where it discusses the violations and punishment. This has led to the rather arbitrary and head-scratching disparities in the "punishments given" for the "crimes committed" for all the recent events we've witnessed. Since the four corners of the document don’t lend any guidance, she was left with the “common law” approach of trying to piece together a history of precedent for punishments given.

Which is why - in my opinion only - the suspension itself is less important than the findings in the published report. And when Sue Robinson seems to imply (quite clearly) that Watson deserved a harsher penalty, but she was confined by the NFL's own policies .... it is serious and worth discussion.

j/c:

I'll try this again. While I agree that not being indicted by the GJ means Watson is innocent, I will argue that Judge Robinson's ruling does not prove his guilt.

Why is it so hard to understand that she was not making a legal ruling, but instead, was ruling on whether or not Watson violated The Personal Conduct Policy? I get that some people need to be right, but man!

For months, posters have been telling us that the NFL didn't need legal proof and it was all about whether he violated the Personal Conduct Policy. Now, they are acting like it was an actual legal trial in a court of law.

Play fair.

Was it sexual assault or not? I'm not parsing through different definitions you posted in order to muddy the waters here. You either conclude he was guilty of sexual assault as was defined clearly or you don't. You also claimed that "sexual assault is not a good term to use when it can mean anything from pinching someone's butt to forcible rape". Which in this case is absolutely false. The definition was clearly defined in this case.

Oh, so just so you know for future reference, sexual assault and rape are two different things. With possibly the exception of Texas. The exception isn't the rule.

Freudian slip?

Quit dancing - what, exactly, is false about my statement?

Here we go.

More than reasonable? First, I'm not saying it's a terrible opinion, I'm sure many share it. However (although unintentional) it's basically cherry-picking a statement out of the context of a very different thought process and explanation. Reading the entire paragraph, I feel like it is an indictment of the league's inept process much more than the level of Deshaun's guilt. JMO

I am bound “by standards of fairness and consistency of treatment among players
similarly situated.” The NFL argues that consistency is not possible, because there are no
similarly-situated players. By ignoring past decisions because none involve “similar” conduct,
however, the NFL is not just equating violent conduct with non-violent conduct, but has elevated
the importance of the latter without any substantial evidence to support its position.
While it may be entirely appropriate to more severely discipline players for non-violent sexual conduct,
I do not believe it is appropriate to do so without notice of the extraordinary change this
position portends for the NFL and its players.

Great. So they hire a female Federal Judge to rule on whether or not Watson violated the Personal Conduct Policy and are appealing the very first decision she made. What a load of crap. I hope Watson's representatives sue them and trash them in court while exposing many of their dirty, dark secrets.

Well, this will be dragged and dragged out now … even more.

Watson will probably play to start the year … and then be done for the rest of it IMO

Read the comments. LOL

They are much like my own. Why even appoint her if you think you understand law better than she does?

NOW... Roger gets to decide whether he'll handle the appeal himself or will personally appoint someone else.

A judge tells the league "something stinks", the Rog raises his leg and says "hold my beer".

Can't make this stuff up, folks.

If this is anything drastically more punitive, this probably means Deshaun starts the season.

Unless Rog has the balls to exempt him.

The whole thing is asinine. It should be resolved when a third party, well respected judge makes a decision.

You and I both know this is going to happen. No way they let him see the field if it is not resolved by then.

The NFLPA should never have allowed the loophole in the CBA that permitted this to go right back to Goodell. The owners continue to play the NFLPA like a fiddle. Unbelievably dumb to allow that in the CBA.

Doesn't the language of the Exemption list make that very unlikely? Who knows, maybe they will just do what they always do and bend the rules to fit their needs.

I have a feeling he’s not going to be on the field all season

That's fair. My "/thread" comment wasn't meant to imply we should shut down the discussion, although I could see it interpreted that way.

I assume you mean "isn't". "They" don't have a choice if a judge files an injunction while the process is sorted out.

Very similar circumstances here:

Sept. 8, 2017: Judge grants injunction, blocking Elliott’s suspension
Judge Amos Mazzant granted the NFLPA’s request for a preliminary injunction.

"Based upon preliminary injunction standard, the Court finds, that Elliott did not receive a fundamentally fair hearing, necessitating the Court grant the request for preliminary injunction,” Mazzant’s ruling read.

That means Elliott will be on the field for the Cowboys until this plays out in the court.

Meanwhile, Daniel Snyder who is being investigated by Congress for bribery, sexual exploitation, intimidating witnesses, running a shadow investigation, making porn videos, using their cheerleaders as escorts, unauthorized opening of texts and emails , etc, etc has received nothing more than a fine. Kraft, who frequented an establishment accused of having illegal sex traffic workers who could not even speak English receives nothing. Jones covers up a peeping Tom and receives nothing.

I'm pretty close to being at a breaking point w/the NFL. I walked away from MLB when they pulled their crap decades ago when they wouldn't open their books and the NBA recently. I love football, but man, this stinks. The discrepancies of how their members are treated reeks of good ol' boy political corruption.

Yep. I bet they use it as a platform to discuss how they are taking to heart the judge's opinion that they need to be forward-looking, starting now.

No matter where someone falls on the whole punishment that is deserved for Watson, you have to admit this whole thing is a giant clusterfuse now.

If this follows the Elliot timeline (his suspension didn't start 'til game 12), we're way more screwed now than we were ten minutes ago... We'd have to be at least 9-3 for the privilege of sneaking into the playoffs with an average QB.

Bengals
Ravens
Saints
Commanders
Steelers


And then Watson would also miss more time to start next season! Fun times!

I can see and understand your point of view. It's logical taken as a whole - but my point still stands, there is no need to even discuss a harsher penalty or suggest that it might be appropriate if not for the framework .... unless she felt that it was warranted and had meaning.

The NFL cannot admit their own mistakes either. ffs

That's not what Goodell is saying or suggesting - but, ahhhh, never mind.

Well, there is a chance that Goodell--or his appointed designee-- will side w/Judge Robinson's decision.

The NFL is seeking an indefinite suspension. There’s really no stopping them from getting it. Watson might DELAY it with an appeal, but the NFL will get their amount of flesh.

Seems like there are two possibilities:

1.) They will impose an indefinite suspension.

2.) They are mad that Watson and the Browns specifically designed his contract to avoid financial punishment (which is the type of thing the NFL would be angry about, ruling aside). They abide by the length of the suspension but increase the fine to ~$17.5M to represent the actual salary loss that Watson would have had if signing bonuses hadn't been used to avoid it.

I have considered this---not necessarily the same dollar figure--but was afraid to say it earlier.

I would find that acceptable.

Why punish other players on the team and the fans of the team? Punish the player where it hurts. The bank account.

That pig ain't even gettin' off the ground.

Some wanted to suggest the NFL would leave the decision well enough alone - many said that, reading Sue Robinson's ruling it was an open invitation for the NFL to do challenge the suspension and seek a harsher penalty. Putting aside what sort of individual DW is at this point - the NFL is really only interested in one thing which is OPTICS. Not the optics to the fans that pay attention and follow everything in detail .... optics for the casual fans and masses. 26 allegations - a "guilty" verdict by Sue Robinson and a six games suspension are not good Optics. Pointing fingers at the owners doesn't do any good what so ever.

I am not sure re what the point of the third party arbitrator is if one of the parties can appeal her ruling to itself. If this judge is the permanent arbitrator and the nfl dramatically increases the penalty she gave, in futures cases she may be inclined to assign no penalty since that cannot be appealed.

I think Judge Robinson should resign. The NFL is using her as a figurehead. They have completely dismissed her legal expertise and decades of experience.

J/C What a complete SHAM process that says we hire a retired federal judge to rule over these things, she makes a judgement, the NFL sticks their toes in the pool after its over and now it appears they want to Re-neg on the process which was agreed to. I seriously hope they take Roger and the boys to federal court on this. Knowing a couple of Judges personally and working in the system that I do, the #1 thing Judges dont like is to be 2nd guessed and made to look insignificant in their rulings. This could BLOW up Bigtime to make the NFL look like Morons. I hope it does. Deep down I feel their are some Economic benefits to dragging this out even more, US/WE tune into the NFL network and then watch 15 minutes of commercials for every 5 minutes of programming! Just a Thought! They actually like the Soap Opera, it is profitable

No, I meant 'is.' I understand the Elliott case, but if the NFL doesn't want Watson on the field week 1, then he won't be on the field week 1.

This story has gotten much more attention nationally and dwarfs the Elliott case in the eyes of public opinion.

If (and I'm merely speculating) advertisers are threatening the NFL behind the scenes that they will pull ad dollars if Watson is on the field, the NFL will see to it he is not.

This will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

Either way, it seems like the 2022 season is over before it began.

I thought the same thing before Robinson's ruling, wondering if a fine would be assessed. The largest fine in NFL history was to Jamal Lewis – $760,000. And he was found guilty in a court of law with a prison term. Not sure she would have given herself much more liberty when the rest of her conversation centered around "precedence". In other words, no fine would have been big enough to preempt the NFL's response.

If I’m Sue Robinson right now I’d feel used

I think I am getting you, but you clarify a bit?

She is a woman. So what if she was a Federal Judge? She isn't capable of interpreting legalese like real men can.

j/c:

Yeah, I left out the middle part of the thought process.

I'm saying she refused to go outside the boundaries of "precedence" with punishment; she wasn't going to ignore previous precedence with a fine.

And then I'm jumping to "if/then"... even if she did, would a 1M fine cause Rog to stand down? 2M, 3M? Probably not.

Gotcha. Thanks.

But don't worry, looks like the executioner will levy the fine instead.

I don't know how I feel about the NFL trying to amend the suspension - it makes a bit of a mockery out of the proceedings, but Sue Robinson knew going in that the NFL can change any suspension she hands out. What any change to the suspension really points out is how piss-poor the policy that was in place is/was.

Again - personally I feel that all the NFL is concerned with is optics - that's why I am unsure how I feel about any challenge they make to the current suspension. But the question is, if someone were to believe the case is actually worthy of a penalty (financial or suspension) greater than currently specified by current policy .... is it better to challenge the penalty as is and hand out a penalty fitting of what Sue Robinson found Watson guilty of (regards conduct governed by the NFL - not "court of law") .... or leave as is and then re-write the policies? I don't have a an answer for you from my side.

Browns fans be like...

This is a general question for anyone who may have an answer.

When the appeal is made and it is reported as "the nfl is going to appeal".

Who is the NFL? Who is representing the NFL? Does this mean Goodell?

Is the NFL a group? Is it the owners?

Is Goodell appealing to Goodell?

People bringing up the Ezekiel Elliot situation are missing the fact that it occurred under the old CBA. The new CBA has corrected the ambiguities, and is extremely clear about the fact that Goodell (or somebody he chooses) can determine any punishment they want.

Sure, Watson can sue - but any reasonable judge would toss out that suit in a day -- because there is already a bargaining agreement in place, and it is extremely clear.

Likewise - Sue Robinson was entirely, 100% crystal clear her finding and suspension may get altered. In fact - it appears to many as if she wrote the finding in such a way as that it seems probable/natural to amend her ruling.

If speculating on the odds of Watson's lawsuit I'd say the findings of the Judge will give them some ammunition for a stronger punishment. Maybe Watson calls for "the owners" treatments, maybe the NFL responds by bringing the treatment of all the players. We will see sadly.

It could drag in to next year. The though may be they want the 6 games suspended at a higher pay rate.

Also, the appeal may be written as such that the 6 games needs to include a fine. At Watsons reported salary of $1,000,000 this year, 6 games out of 17 is $58823 per game. That is around $353,000 total.

The NFL may not feel he is being penalized enough in that regard, and I can't say I disagree from a fairness standpoint compared to other veteran players. I am not really advocating one way or the other. I am just thinking out loud as to what the NFL might be thinking.

A fix to all of this is to possibly set fine amounts, or a percentage of salary so there is some continuity to penalty. I mean, games are fines for players. Sitting out games doesn't really impact a player, it impacts teams and fans. Losing the game check is what impacts players.

Give me a weelk and I could have this crap fixed if I had the magic wand.

If I were Watson I'd retire.

And Clowney would like a do over.

What would that do? Or is that just a statement?

I don't think "ammunition" has anything to do with it.

Goodell can literally decide on any punishment he wants -- for any reason. No judge will even look at the facts of the punishment, because the CBA clearly states that he is allowed to do whatever he wants at this stage.

Watson cannot "call" for anything -- no judge will even let him argue the details of the case, they don't matter anymore.

The only thing the NFLPA could do is literally go on strike -- but I doubt they do that over the suspension of a player that an independent judge has determined to be a sexual predator.

Like it or not, the NFLPA will probably use the race card. Owners (white guys) and other similar cases (Big Ben) are treated one way and the black players (Watson, Hopkins, Ridley, etc) are treated much more severely.

So.... Watson plays the first 6 games and gets suspended for the season and we go 6-10

That would be so Browns

I am not sure what the NFLPA was thinking in giving Goodell the trump card. The Judge is useless especially if Goodell has his mind already set on what he wants. He just went through the motions, sitting back smoking a cigar, knowing he is going to get what he wants anyways.

Exactly.

The NFLPA: Great news, we finally got the NFL to agree to a third party arbiter for disciplinary rulings!

The NFL:

Our season is basically over at this point .. NFL holds the leverage it appears. The NFLPA gets played like a fiddle every CBA negotiation.

Any suspension over 6 games is probably too much for us to overcome anyways … I’d prefer him just take the full year and then we can retain another year of control of his contract

It I were Watson, I would sue the NFL for racial discrimination. The owners are supposedly held to a higher standard. White owners commit acts as egregious (kraft) if not more so (snyder) and get significantly less punishment. But Watson is getting treated differently and much more harshly because he is black.

Not saying that that is what is transpiring. I personally think that the owners aren't getting punished because they are rogers cronies. But I don't see how the NFL can show that there is no racial motivation to their actions.

I think that is what the NFLPA was counting on, or at least had that factored in to things. That will give them a reason to go to court.

I don't think the NFL just hammering the Dolphins was a coincidence. The NFL wants to have something on their side.

I am not arguing, but I am not positive that is a good take. The reason why is that the NFLPA has lost every lawsuit they have taken to the Federal Courts. Brady, Zeke, and I think Peterson. The reason they lost was because of language. This is why the NFLPA wanted a change in the latest CBA. Now, they have the ability to argue that the league's Disciplinary Officer has been ignored and they can use the language in her ruling to combat what the NFL is doing. In the past, they did not have that option. I hope that makes sense and I feel I might not be explaining it adequately, but I have witnessed this discussion. Dan Graziano is a really good source when it comes to interpreting legalese.

I don’t like being right in this case but I felt strongly the NFL would appeal the 6 game ruling. And like I said, I’m not a conspiracy guy but going light with the original ruling very conveniently allows the NFL to swoop in and be the good guy. PR chess.

I’m still of the feeling that a negotiated settlement is likely. Something in the neighborhood of of 8-12 games and several million dollars. We’ll see. He’ll play this year but the season may slip away. If Brissett managed 5-5 or even 6-4 there’s no guarantee that Deshawn isn’t rusty when he gets back.

So, now the question is what are the Browns going to do about the Watson situation?

Here's a few of questions that I have:

1) According to Judge Robinson, Watson has repeatedly lied about his interactions with the women. The Browns have said they did their due diligence when investigating Watson. Did Watson lie to the Browns or have the Browns known all this time that Watson has been lying during his depositions, police interviews, and the hearings committing perjury and obstructing justice?

2) According to Judge Robinson, Watson was predatory, and his behavior was based on a sexual benefit rather than a massage. Watson's actions were deemed egregious and predatory. Did the Browns know this through their investigation or did Watson lie to the Browns about his intent during his activities?

3) Robinson rejected Watson’s denials of wrongdoing and considered his “lack of expressed remorse” to be an aggravating factor. Do the Browns now stand behind Watson after it's been published that not only has he lied but has shown no remorse for his actions or did the Browns already know that Watson was lying thus enabling him?

4) Judge Robinson found sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the NFL’s contention not only that penile contact occurred, but that Mr. Watson was aware that contact probably would occur, and that Mr. Watson had a sexual purpose – not just a therapeutic purpose – in making these arrangements with these particular therapists. Did the Browns know this through their investigation or did Watson lie to them?

5) Are the Browns going to void the contract due to the false information given them by Watson or do they keep Watson under contract making it look like they have enabled Watson's falsities? Afterall, Judge Robinson stated in her report that Watson has paid "restitution." The definition of restitution is - recompense for injury or loss. Being that Judge Robinson is a former judge, I find her language use candid since a lot of civil lawsuits end up in a settlement agreement. The settlement keeps both parties from spending resources to have a large trial. With a settlement, one party agrees to complete an action or pay a certain amount in exchange for the other party to stop the legal proceedings. Paying restitution denotes quilt and paying for committing injury or loss, not a stoppage of legal action.

The NFL is appealing Watson's suspension. Goodell wants it to be for 1 year!

Appeals: Appeals must commence within 10 days of receipt of the appeal. So, the NFL's appeal of Watson's suspension must commence by August 13th.

None of us will really know the answers to your 1-4 questions. What we do know is the Browns put themselves right in the middle of a big mess!

I felt like the NFL would appeal also.

Goodell wants it to be indefinite with a minimum of 1 year

I hope black America unites and screams for justice. Big Ben gets 4 games for rape charges. The NFL wants an indefinite suspension for the black dude for allegations that are far below rape. The white owners get off, but the black qb does not. Being born into wealth provides protection and privilege. Working your way up due to hard work and your talents if you are black doesn't afford you a damn thing other than we can knock you down because you don't belong.

This is pandering and race hustling at its worst.

Allow me to repeat an earlier quote:

May I ask how the NFL can lose their own appeal?

j/c...

Who has shouted anyone down here, other than yourself? I only pointed out your blatant and cynical attempt to make this a race issue. Despicable.

I apologize for expressing my "despicable" opinion, sir.

This was all pretty predictable. Did anyone really think Goodell was going to let the opportunity to insert himself into this situation pass him by? Especially when things didn’t go the way he wanted?

The NFL has Watson by the balls. He should have brought a bigger towel.

I thought he might appeal. In fact, I assumed he would given public opinion and his history of penalizing blacks way more harshly than whites, not to mention letting owners go off w/out any punishment for worse allegations. On the other hand, I thought they might let the female Disciplinary Officer at least rule one case w/out them overruling her.

So, I really didn't know. But no, I can't say I am surprised that once again the NFL isn't interested in equity.

Were you cool w/the white boy Farve sending pictures of his junk w/no towel to another woman?

Dave - everyone can see you expressed an opinion and didn't try to shout someone down. There seems to be only one poster doing that at the moment.

Were you good w/the old white man Kraft frequenting an establishment of scantily clad Asian women who could not speak English? Were you cool w/him not even thinking about the illegal sex trade?

He's white. He's old. He comes from money. He must be legit.

Watson is black. He was poor. He doesn't belong.

Who exactly will hear the appeal? Honest question.

Your deflection and willingness to enable a sexual misconduct predator is never ending.

Your lashing out and trying to shout down anyone with a different perspective than your own is at an all time high.

Well, this is a fun twist. I truly didn't believe the NFL would appeal.
Grab some popcorn folks, this is good theater

Rodger Goodell or his appointed designee.

Well isn’t that nice.

No.

Tons of things have also changed since Favre’s dong shots in 2010. Literally the entire culture has turned against people like Favre and Watson.

Frankly, I just wish it would conclude one way or the other.

That's fair.

Yes.

May I ask you another question. Are you positive that Watson is guilty?

And Favre, Kraft, Snyder, or any other individual that may have "got off" - doesn't excuse Watson and it does not mean a suitable suspension/penalty isn't wholly justified.

And Favre did sent illicit photos of himself to a Jets employee. No problem, I guess.

Ben was accused twice of rape, NFL gave him a wrist-slap. But now that the nfl is more ‘sensitive’, they’re going after Deshaun hard. Why appoint the judge, but appeal her ruling?

I mentioned the other day - someone was crowing for weeks about everyone accepting Sue Robinson's judgement. That was Vers.

Now the judgement is out and it is unequivocal - and Vers wants to ignore or debate the findings and ruling. Ey Ey Ey. No wonder he has so many people on ignore.

Of at least one case or all of them?

And her judgment was that Watson was super guilty and lacked remorse. Just that the NFL sucks and she couldn’t suspend him more.

They appointed the judge so that when there was a ruling they liked but the public didn’t they could point to her and say, “It wasn’t us.”

Really folks..............am I the only one that sees that white dudes and especially owners are treated differently than black players and coaches?

How many black owners are there?

What is the percentage of of black players in the NFL? I think it's 70% to 75%.

What is the percentage of black head coaches?

Do black coaches get crappier jobs than white coaches?

Do white coaches who have been fired get more opportunities than blacks who have been fired?

Do white coaches who come out of nowhere get more HC opportunities than black coaches?

Do white owners get away w/violating the Personal Conduct Policy more than black players?

Do white players get away w/violating the Personal Conduct Policy more than black players?

Does the NFL cater more to public opinion than factual evidence? If so, is public opinion driven by whites or blacks?

And out of everyone that has an opinion on this - Sue Robinson is the one that has seen and heard all the evidence. Right? And she is a retired, respected Judge with an impeccable record. Right? That was repeated a few times by said poster ... but now the ruling is in, suddenly the soundness of her decisions is to be questioned and undermined.

Find me a white dude in any capacity within the NFL with 26 allegations of Sexual Assault/Misconduct levied against them and I'll compare it to how Watson is being treated. To be fair and balanced - we need that White Guy to have been accused of these things since the #metoo movement was a thing.

That could be a great discussion. I don't want to make it public because I hate assigning guilt either way. You probably are not interested, but if you are, PM me and I have a theory about what you are asking. It isn't an answer......it is just a theory. Unlike some folks who use words like predator, rapey, sexual deviant, etc........I won't resort to that in a public forum.

Woke

Also, her judgement determined that Watson receive a 6 game suspension. Yet, some Browns fans [sic] say that he deserves much more. So, why won't they listen to her recommendations?

Didn't think so. Carry on.

j/c:



Lolz.

So if Cleveland was playing Houston in weeks 6 or 8, the NFL would have been fine with a suspension until then? Geez.....what a clown show, if true.

Sue Robinson is in bed with NFL.
It's only pandering and race hustling because you don't like the opinion, do not like Watson, and was/are a Baker fan. It's no coincidence that the the most vocal anti Watson guys are big Baker fans. That is not a coincidence.

Well you guys got what you wished for. I hope another non-playoff season is enjoyable for you.

Me, personally, I only care about watching winning football and am unapologetic about it. With Watson we had a good chance of watching winning football. Without him we won't make the playoffs. That is not enjoyable to me. We will also have wasted another year of Myles, Chubbs, and Bitonios primes. So we jeopardize further seasons of winning football. I cannot think of anything less enjoyable than watching continuous losing over and over and over again season after season after season. I don't care if the players are nice, mean, personable, bad people, good people, etc. Don't care. Just frigging win.

If you're telling me that you can't enjoy a winning season if Watson is your QB, I respect that decision. But i am not in that camp. I will still tune in and watch every Sunday and hope like hell they win. Now, I am debating on canceling Sunday ticket. Or maybe I'll adopt the Raiders.

Extremely well said.

Delete post

My initial reaction after Robinson's ruling was that the NFL would not appeal. Oops! <cringe face emoji>

The Browns never cease to amaze me how they can not only step in a pile chit, but somehow manage to fall face first in it and flop around. They had to understand that how this is playing out was always a possibility.

What a mess and it's always the fans that are left holding the bag.

j/c:

I have had the same thoughts. I freaking love football. i watch college and NFL football on two huge TVs every time they are on. I record games and break down what i see. Love it. But, I used to love watching MLB and they turned me off w/the BS about not opening their books, the steroid hysteria, and the labor negotiations. I loved the NBA, but the the social and political BS along w/dudes like Kyrie, Simmons, Leonard, Hardin,etc not playing drove me away.

Again, I am not sure about this because I love football so much...............but what the NFL is doing to Watson has me very upset because they are letting worse offenders off the hook while punishing a black man. I'm not good w/that. At all. I am not making any proclamations right now because I am emotional, but if the NFL doesn't care about Browns fans............than I am not sure i want to view their product.

I absolutely love collegiate football. I wonder if that will be enough to curb my football appetite?

JC Tretters way of saying "ya all should have handed me a contract !!!

So now I'm a nit-noid? WTH?




jk, I knew what you meant.

Well crap. I hate to agree but I do. I think he should have a longer suspension, yes, but she was very clear she played by their rules in this. I'm all for making an example of RDW because he's a predator, plain and simple. But I don't think they can really do much more because of how they handled crap in the past. RDW may actually get fewer suspended games if this drags out to final arbitration. Judge Robinson did a very good job articulating the "why's" in her ruling, I don't see how this appeal helps the NFL's image, IMO. They are making a kangaroo court out of this by seeking more, IMO.

Before I get flamed, remember my stance on the whole thing. And I hope like hell this doesn't result in the guard rails she put in place being reversed or undone. The browns put themselves here and have to deal with RDW for at least 5 years, so he needs that short leash IMO.

Sure, except he would be walking away from $230 mil... Somehow, I don't think even the stupidest person on earth does that to prove a point. As long as there are no criminal charges, he can sit as long as they punish him and just wait for that Brinks truck to show up.

I think this thing is going to federal court now- wonder how long it will take to get done? Watson will play while it works its way through the court system- NFL chose to air their laundry in court- we will see if they end up liking their choice. Watson has lots of money he can pay lawyers/ NFL has more, but they sure have open a HUGE can of worms. Go Browns!!!

Utterly ridiculous… nfl hires an impartial arbitrator to rule… but doesn’t like their ruling… so they appeal.. to themselves…. It’s the dumbest thing

I dont like that info about the NFL wanting to have Watson avoid playing in Houston … so they’ll conveniently make his suspension 12 games? So now all of a sudden suspensions are decided by the schedule makers in April? Lol so dumb

I don't have an opinion on that, but I would like to point out that what is and is not acceptable social behavior is always evolving. Sexting was a big thing for a while, look at the trouble it brought Anthony Weiner. Were as what used to be termed as a "rub and tug", like all massage parlors were just houses of ill repute has evolved into an accepted medical therapy, while both versions still seem to exist.

Also, even though the race card might be appropriate under what you are pointing out, I don't think it would be in RDWs best interests to use it. He should just take whatever they serve up for him and bide his time. He literally has 230 million reasons to shut up right now.

I'd like to answer this one and I'm not trying to offend or argue with you. Watson should have stuck to his guns, no matter the cost to defend his innocence, as he claimed. This is when he lost any support I was trying to muster for him. Without more info on the explicit details of each occurrence from both RDW and the women, I don't think anyone can 100% conclusively decide he's guilty or innocent. But the number of women claiming the same type of situations done him in. His denial and lack of remorse looked good until he started making big payments, at that point his denial and lack of remorse morphed into the sinister lies of a predator. Psychopaths do not feel remorse and can not always tell what is right or wrong, socially acceptable, etc. HIS OWN ACTIONS painted him like that IMO. That's why I went full-on NOPE in regards to him. I say let him pay the price. I was ready to accept 6 games the way the judge explains it. I will accept whatever he gets here too. But in order to move forward, I feel he needed to pay a price and that he needed to be heavily scrutinized to insure it doesn't continue. Predators, true predators, will always do it again, or find the next level to escalate to. RDW will have an opportunity to return to the game and somewhat redeem his name if he can just stay within the guardrails from that point forward. But at this point, I don't think you could find many who would look at what we know and determine he's innocent from the jump, especially after that scathing report from the judge. He did what he did, he's paying the price, let it play out. But my advice to him would be to shut up and take whatever they give him, live with it, and come back and prove he can be a decent human. FWIW IMHO.

Glass half full: If Watson is suspended 12 games or more he doesn't accrue a full season.

Vers, if you really want an answer to your question - read on. Judge Robinson without a doubt left no stone unturned in confirming that Watson violated the PCP, lied repeatedly, was a predator, sexually abused those women according to NFL guidelines, shows zero remorse, and paid restitution (not to be confused with settlements). She also stated that the NFL without a doubt proved that Watson did these things without question.

Now Judge Robinson also said that Watson deserves a lengthy suspension but in trying to follow the vague guidelines and applying past practice she could only suspend Watson for 3 games but added 3 games due to aggravated circumstances. Now to your point, the NFL has not been making decisions on these type of violations as they probably should have. The public, team owners, NFLPA, NFL and players demanded the CBA be adjusted to correct these issues. Through contract negotiation, the NFLPA and the NFL came up with a program that was or is supposed to address that issue going forward. The key word here is going forward. In the first case to be decided by the new process is a case that is so egregious the NFL or NFLPA has never witnessed such a violation by a player. Judge Robinson's ruling was based on past practice when in actuality was the exact reason why she was placed in the position to prevent that from happening.

If the new CBA is going to work as negotiated by both sides, the NFL cannot allow Watson (the first case) to be treated as business as usual. You may not like it, but the fact still remains, the NFLPA and the NFL agreed to the process where either side has the ability to appeal the arbitrators ruling to which Goodell or his designee will make the final binding ruling on the case. If the NFLPA decides to sue in Federal Court about the final binding ruling, it most likely will be immediately thrown out because the NFLPA negotiated the process with the NFL. Think about it, what are they going to say - we don't like the contract we negotiated?

I've read your numerous posts complaining over and over again about owners not being penalized and/or players getting light suspensions. If the NFLPA agreed to the new process to address these types of mistakes in discipline, how in the hell can they be crying foul when a player that has been deemed a predator, one who lies constantly, sexually abused women (24 plus and counting) and shows no remorse to be handed the same type of discipline that they just went through negotiations to stop. In the latest poll, over 75% of respondents said Judge Robinson's suspension was inadequate.

Look, I get that your only focus is on the Browns getting to a Super Bowl. Maybe the Browns should have either did a better investigation into Watson since it appears he lied to them also or the Browns are as guilty as Watson because they are enabling him when they knew he was lying and have risked the good name of the franchise on a man that abused 24 plus women to win games.

I don't see how Watson beats any of this in court. The CBA pretty clearly spells out the process for appeals. No judge is going to basically veto a collectively bargained agreement. Like Milk Man has said this is on the union for agreeing to such a provision.

At this point Watson should just settle for the fewest games or least amount of money possible (whichever he cares about more) and move on.

Obviously this was a joke.

Both.

The Browns investigation was surface level. They literally could have just hired Jenny Vrentas and accomplished more than what they did. The Browns also didn't care what Watson did. They are betting that once passes start flying into the endzone people will forget/forgive Watson for anything he might have done/did.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/cy...43fba1f204a70f4c3d54&category=foryou

LOL...The problem today is that Woke and Jokes are like oil and vinegar.

You can't tell jokes anymore.

If it is roll all season with Jacoby - so be it.

I watched 1-31. I remember think Cody Kessler? It can not get worse.

DW has earned the punishment that will be handed out no matter what it is.

I don't like that the "NFL" is appealing the ruling of a federal judge. They may as well just go back to the way it was before. I was suspicious of the process from the beginning. There should be no appeal from either side period. Why have a judge who was put there as an arbitrator? It makes her ruling meaningless.

Oh well I will get behind Jocoby and hope for the best.

College football may not be the answer either.

I think the Browns thought Watson would just get a slap on the wrist and only get a minimal suspension. They probably thought getting a QB like Watson was worth it and would make the Browns instant SB contenders.

Now, who knows if Watson will ever play a down for the Browns in a regular season game. If he does, may not be until next year.

I'm guessing that the white folks for the Texans are not going to be punished at all in their role to hurt women?

The NFL is an evil institution.

I beg the differ on Watson playing. At a minimum, he has already been suspended for 6-games. You can count on the Commissioner placing Watson on the Exempt list if a federal suit is filed.

Players who are placed by the Commissioner on the Exempt list prior to the determination of discipline and any appeal therefrom under the Personal Conduct Policy will be paid while on the Commissioner Exempt list and credited for the regular and post-season games missed against any suspension ultimately imposed. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement, if such a suspension is ultimately imposed, the player must promptly return and shall have no further right to any salary for the games for which he was paid while on the Commissioner Exempt list that were credited to the suspension (i.e., for a number of games no greater than the length of the suspension).

Secondly, the question will be posed to as what the NFLPA is going to sue for. They are certain losers if they try to sue the process because they negotiated and agreed to the process with the approval of the CBA. What can the NFLPA sue for that's not spelled out within the agreed upon CBA?

More importantly is the effect this will have on Watson. Keep in mind that according to the negotiated CBA, the evidence that Judge Robinson used is determining her punishment is binding and cannot be challenged. If the NFL calls Watson as a witness in their defense against a NFLPA lawsuit, Watson will have to admit under oath that he committed the egregious acts that Judge Robinson uncovered or face perjury charges. Once he does admit guilt, the State of Texas would have proof of Watson's criminal acts. I don't believe that the NFL wants its dirty laundry published but the suit will cause Watson much more harm than the NFL because unlike the initial hearing, this would actually be in a court of law where his false testimony would carry legal ramifications.

Then there's the Buzbee press conference scheduled today. I hate to think what this might contain but you can bet that it won't be a positive spin for Watson. Could there be more suits coming, new evidence, or something against the Browns? I'm very leery of this press conference and the timing of it.

Whaetever the suspension. The Browns now have a franchise QB. It just might take longer than expected to have him under center. I thought Watson was treated fair by the judge. I disagree with the NFL's decision. But in the end he needs to serve his punishment, learn from his mistakes, and be a better person long term. The team will grow around Jacoby and I have faith we'll win some games. Hopefully, enough to get to the playoffs. Next man up for now!

So we know the NFLPA is going to sue. It won't be over the procedure laid out in the CBA...because that is essentially solid. So they will probably sue under discrimination, hostile workplace (ok that is kind of ironic)...anything else I am missing 05 and peen...would love your thoughts....

I don't agree with this - Sue Robinson handed down a suspension based on the framework of the NFL's policies. She is not in a position to decide the policies are bad and she will ignore them. I think that if she felt the suspension did not fit the actions she believed Watson to be guilty of - she could/would write a ruling that spells out how egregious the issues were, and state that she was confined to a maximum suspension as dictated by the NFL.... and that's what she did.

It's interesting - as the dust settles - I don't think I saw or heard many on this board rail against the 6 game suspension. I didn't see posts calling for a longer suspension. I know I didn't. I took it at face value and accepted it while focusing on what Sue Robinson stated about Watson who is the face of the Browns now. Maybe I need to go back and re-read the initial reactions - but to me, the claim that posters were clamoring for a longer suspension after the announcement don't ring true for many of the people who have been questioning the Brown's decision to go after a guy with 26 allegations of sexual misconduct/assault hanging over him.

Do we know they are suing for sure? I haven't seen an announcement.

Vers, the racial overtones doesn't serve anyone on this forum. As far as the Texans, again, if Watson is innocent as you continue to preach then the Texans cannot be guilty of anything. However, if they are guilty like you assume then Watson must be guilty too.

I agree that the Texans appear to have some guilt in this whole process, and I don't know if the NFL is investigating them or not since it took already more than a year and a half to start to get closure on Watson.

Outside of that, I find it interesting that you have blamed the women, the Texans, Buzbee, the NFL, Judge Robinson, society, white people, Goodell, NFL owners, and concerned Browns fans in a constant barrage yet not once have I heard you say that Watson needs to take responsibility for the actions, he and only he decided was ok in the treatment of the women. Nobody is responsible for the mess that overloads this forum on a daily basis except for one person - Watson. Nobody but nobody is responsible for the interactions of Watson and more than 66 women via Instagram than Watson. You can blame whomever you want to ease your own personal feelings, but you can't hide the fact the the single denominator in every single effort of blame still is Watson. He and he alone created this mess and he and he alone was the egregious contributor.

I took a little liberty on that...no, we don't know for sure...but it is an assumption based in a strong foundation...

I don't know what will happen and if the NFLPA will challenge. As you said - any ruling on Watson by Goodell will be in keeping with the contract and policies of the NFL and NFLPA. However, you do bring up a good point - how does a court of law view and interpret/treat a 'guilty' verdict by Sue Robinson. Since the process wasn't conducted within and to the same legal system as a court of law, I am not so sure that the verdict would be as cut and dry within our legal system as you suggested. Maybe someone else can verify - but I think it's probably doubtful that there is precedent for a guilty verdict in a Civil Trial to be used as the momentum/trigger to go forward with a criminal trial?

Can't say I'm surprised by the action taken by the NFL... From the moment of the announcement of a 6 game suspension, I felt it was a NO WIN for the NFL and Goodell. No matter which way it went, he was going to be looked at like a fool and so is the NFL..

But from my standpoint, the NFL and the NFLPA put together a plan for such situation. They should have just stuck with it and left it at 6 games. JMHO however.


OH well, back to the drawing board I guess

This is an excellent post and can apply to anyone trying to absolve or deflect blame away from Watson.

My understanding from reading something somewhere (yeah, I know that's not helpful) is that the NFL was going to leave the Texans alone.

When someone says justice wasn't served, does that count?

The 6 game long suspension from judge S.L. Robinson was a joke and a insult to all sexually abused women out there and that’s why the NFL had to appeal. What else could they do?

With a 15 page long document in front them of where the judge hammering Watson to the ground the commissioner was left with no other alternatives if he want to walk out of this without looking like a misplaced old out of touch dinosaur. The document also raise serious questions about the Browns so called investigation. To use words like “we’re comfortable with what we know” is almost insulting against us Cleveland Browns supporters who thought we had a professional and honest leadership in our organization. The charades they delivered at that infamous press conference in late Mars seems almost comical when reading theses documents.

I mean WTF!! Incompetence doesn’t even cover how bad this is handled.

^ Here is another one.

So, you are shouting down my opinions? Furthermore, I have never once said Watson was innocent. Please stop telling lies.

I was listening to Mike Tanenbomb. Not someone I place in high regard. However, he said the Browns should go after Jimmy G.

I disagree. JB could play with Browns as good or better. It is not that Jimmy G is bad player. The issue is what the Browns would have to give up to get him.

Not worth it when you look at the difference between JB and Jimmy G.

The Browns need to get behind Jacoby and make the best of it with him.

On another note Miami. The owner was caught red handed tampering. He did it at a high level. He also treated his former head coach in the worst way you can treat a coach. He told him to lose and then blamed him for the loses. All the while he courted Payton and Brady. So they punish the team. He gets a pocket change fine and a suspension equal to DW at six games.

Sure sounds fair right? Integrity of the league. Please.

I asked the question before nobody gave an answer. When they say the "NFL" is appealing the decision. Who is the "NFL."

Is it a committee? Is it Goodell? It is not a PR guy. Who decided that six games is not enough? The public?

I want to know who is the NFL? How was it decided that the "NFL" decided to trash the ruling of a federal judge?

The "NFL" decided before the ruling "they" wanted a full season. I would like to know about that process.

Robinson was in cohoots with the NFL as recently as a month ago. Just read an article by Charles Robinson that she announced the suspension would not be what the NFL wanted a month ago to the hearing participants thereby allowing Watson to stand his ground and the NFL to start preparing for the appeal. She then wrote her ruling in a way that would help the NFL appeal.

Best I could tell was she felt some judicial duty on the sentence but not in aiding the NFL to overturn it.

What a messed up process.

RDW is lucky Robinson wasn't ruling on criminal prosecution. She would have thrown the book at him. It was plain to see she formed a very low opinion of him during this.

It was not a joke. I think you're letting your emotions overwhelm your objectivity on this one. It's fine to say the punishment was not nearly harsh enough, but if you adopt that rationale, the logical nexus is that the NFL's own previous actions, policies, and punishments are at the crux of all this. Judge Robinson was very logical in her thought process. Try to focus on analyzing rather than reacting.

The NFL is appealing because of its own PR. It still looks awful, because now they are undermining their own appointed arbiter, and the NFLPA looks stupid too for agreeing to a useless provision. This will be a course of strain in the next round of negotiations.

If you ask me, what the NFL should have done after the ruling, rather than go reactionary itself, is to take Judge Robinson's advice to heart and renegotiate a codification of punishments with the NFLPA to avoid what clearly looks to be an arbitrary meting of punishments and an illogically varying pattern of precedence. It serves everyone better and also eases the process if there are "sentencing guidelines" like FATE alluded to previously.

The real problem is that Goodell, throughout his tenure, has wanted to do what he has wanted to do, and not done what he did not want to do. That's all well and good when you're running a disinterested dictatorship, but when you're trying to run a stable, PR-conscious sports league, it can bite you in the butt, like it currently is.

I'll also add the NFLPA and Watson's camp got owned by the NFL and Robinson. They should have anticipated that Robinson was in bed with the NFL, and they didn't. I think the ruling and the wording caught them completely off guard.

I don't think they have a leg to stand on in pursuing a lawsuit. Robinson saw to that and the CBA will take care of the rest.

Again, the Browns took a calculated risk and it didn't work out.

Flo, OCD and Pit might be the only ones I can think of that have rallied hard about the suspension? That's 3 posters. I someone could write "justice wasn't served" - and not clamour for a longer suspension. I think they could write those words and then rail against the suspension... it could go either way depending on the context of the post(s).

Nice post. I just want to focus on the part I quoted for a moment.

That was my initial reaction after I read Judge Robinson's ruling. I even said so in a post. The only difference is that I said they should do it when they were negotiating the terms of the next CBA. I think that it will take a lot of time and give and take between the league and the NFLPA to come up w/terms that both sides are comfortable with.

That's fair.

It’s my thinking that the Browns brass believed that when the grand jury(s) chose not to pursue criminal charges that he’d (take the obvious and almost certain advice from his counsel and) settle everything quickly and this whole thing was winding down, not building up. They probably thought there’d be a land rush and though only a handful of desperate teams were pursuing him out in the open they had it in their heads that this is a once in a lifetime opportunity, others might enter the fray soon and so they went at it with the zeal that no other team that had real perspective or quality counsel ever should have.

Aaaaand then when they dropped on him the biggest contract in the universe and happily parted with the teams future for years to come they didn’t write in any accountability on Watson’s part. So he stupidly didn’t settle, which allowed Buzbee to do what lawyers like him always do in this kind of situation which was a master class in up-marketing. Make the stakes higher, the terms progressively more expensive and keep the pressure ratcheting ever upwards. It enters the blood stream of the non sports media and from there blossoms into a full-on proper cultural moment. Congratulations and enjoy your world class turd burger.

I know I’m a broken record on this but this was all very predictable. I don’t know who the ultimate decider was but this much I can tell from deduction: they do not have enough voices of reason or good scenario modelers around them. Nothing tells me this more than the fact they didn’t do like the Dolphins and write in the demand for immediate settlement prior to signing. The worse deduction is that they do have those voices and they ignore them. But These are the kinds of decisions usually made by people who are surrounded by yes-men. People that reinforce your appetites and more errant proclivities. If I’m the owner or GM and I stepped into a massive steaming pile of dog doo like this I’m looking around the table for who had the courage to warn me, to speak counter to my desires, who had the sobriety to point out the real risks. If there’s no one, then I have to stop everything and locate that voice and bring them in. It’s too late for this fiasco but moving forward you’ve got to grow up and out of this kind of unforced, self inflicted error. The Browns still have important decisions in front of them regarding how to handle all this but the biggest ones are long past them.

I might believe any other person in the organization is capable of this growth but I have zero faith that the Haslams will ever change. Any organization that has confirmed incompetence at the top will never be very successful in the long run. They’ll always find a ditch to drive into.

j/c:

I think the NFLPA's lawsuit against the NFL is going to emphasize this portion of Judge Robinson's report. It's on page 15---The Conclusion.




This is clearly about how the NFL has treated the owners when they have violated the Personal Conduct Policy.

What is grabs me is the hypocrisy of the NFL.

Specifically the Snyder case. He was forced to change the team name which he fought for years.

When you read what was taking place inside the entire organization and his behavior.

Please. I am not going into what DW should receive. But if you are going to play like are a judicial branch of government then at least be uniform in how you administer justice.

Ross of Miami. Integrity of the league. Again measure what gets done to whom.

If the NFL is now going to be court system then they need to go to law school.

Not bargaining in good faith might be challenged.

While it is written in the contract that Goodell could have the final say, I am not sure that totally dismissing what the arbitrator decided and the seemingly constant changes in the ground rules by the NFL would be in good faith.

The commissioner of the game is supposed to be a neutral party who represents the integrity of the game and doesn't take favor with ownership or players. I am not sure the commissioner has acted as a neutral party for some time.

When one thinks about the NFL, who exactly is the NFL? Roger Goodell is the first person who comes to mind. Not someone else in the NFL office.

Agreed - NFL as an organization dealing with player and owner issues is bereft of credibility and the way they have handled owner's issues has been 100% hypocritical in comparison to how they handle player issues. I don't think anyone could disagree.

You’re right. Joke is the wrong word. Maybe I should have used the punishment wasn’t hard enough to satisfied the public opinion.

Anyway when a judge write such a devastating document that totally destroys the credibility of Watson then she open up all floodgates and give NFL the ammunition to do whatever they want. These documents also paint the Browns as totally incompetent and without any ounce of integrity and backbone. The judge call him flat out for a lier. That’s knock out that totally erase Watson’s credibility and btw it’s unusual strong words when it comes from a ex judge. .

That is all true and can not be denied.

But I have a problem with the "NFL" hiding behind their internal process.

"They" decided beforehand that DW should get a year plus "indefinite." Who is hiding here? Who decided that?

Meanwhile Krafty walks and not a peep about league integrity.

I read Robinsons ruling closely. She went to great lengths to be fair given what she was placed into.

It was not the book of Law. It was a Policy Code. She made her ruling based upon that.

I am better off watching the Braves. I get so frustrated and cynical about the world around me.

j/c...

Goodell trying to change the optics.

This would be my advice to Watson at this point:

Try to settle for as few games as possible, which means offer money/donations/rehab/etc in exchange for games (of course, he might care about his money more than playing in the games this year)

I think best case scenario: he gets a 10-12 game suspension, huge fine, and has to be in therapy

What makes you think she’s in bed with the NFL? Her ruling wasn’t exactly a glowing endorsement of their actions either.

I was thinking about this angle as well. Is this the first ruling Robinson has issued? If so, that is another arrow in the quiver for a lawsuit.

I think that’s more fair, but I don’t think she opened the floodgates for the NFL. I think she was admonishing then for essentially being arbitrary, short-sighted, reactionary morons, but obviously in a much more professional way.

There are a lot of really bad takes still going on with the process, but you are correct. The Judge worked within the agreed framework. While the NFL is making a bad move now in appealing, in my opinion, that is still within the framework too.

Speaking for myself the 6 game suspension was fine because the process called for it. If the NFL wanted it to be longer then they should amend their policies so that it can be longer NEXT TIME. Watson gets the excuse of being the really bad case that gets off light because the rules were not made for a really bad case. The NFL appeal is still valid, it just looks bad to me. He committed acts that should penalize him 6 games.

I read that if he did some sort of intervention and paid a hefty fine the games didn't have to increase. Not sure how accurate that is.

Goodell could appoint Judge Robinson - i guess?

If her opinion was really "I want to suspend him for longer, but have to go by precedent." then appointing her again to determine a reasonable punishment, without paying attention to precedent, would reasonably lead to a longer suspension without it appearing that Goodell is just picking a minion.

Let me be the Devil's Advocate on this one. The CBA was negotiated in 2020 with the new PCP guidelines. This is the first case heard under those guidelines. The NFLPA went to great lengths to negotiate a dramatic shift in the NFL's culture through the CBA. The benefit of fair notice was negotiated as a change by the NFLPA by agreeing to the new language concerning Article 46. For the life of me, I'm dumbfounded that people are crying foul because of the change of going against precedence when that is exactly what the NFLPA negotiated within the CBA. For the owners, there has been only 2 cases that I am aware of that fell under the new CBA. Snyder who was fined 10 million dollars and voluntarily agreed to step away from team activities for a year. In addition, Snyder is still being investigated so it is not necessarily a done deal as of yet. The 2nd was the Dolphins situation that was just ruled on Tuesday but clearly has invoked severe penalties whether you agree with them or not. If the NFLPA is going to argue that past practice has shown light suspensions for some serious offenses compared to others and a disparity between owner and player treatment during negotiations, they cannot expect to use those discrepancies within the context of a newly negotiated CBA that they approved.

You can bet that the NFL lawyers are ready to pounce on the fair notice and/or any past precedence because that was what was the whole point of the adjustments to the CBA that, like it or not, was duly negotiated and approved by the NFLPA. If the NFLPA wanted written detailed penalties, then that should have been negotiated. There's probably not a judge in America that is going to side with using precedence when that is the exact thing they just negotiated to have changed. You can't change the bad process by claiming the new incident should be looked at with the same guidelines as the old process because you don't like it now. Watson doesn't have a leg to stand on because this is exactly what the NFLPA negotiated, and no one is responsible for his behavior but Watson.

Why would she all of a sudden not pay attention to precedent?

j/c:



This seems to make sense from the team's perspective in that the first four games are against (at least at this point) weaker opponents. You know he is going to serve some sort of suspension no less than six games. Kick it off at week 1 as a sort of time served concept if this drags on through a lengthy appeals process.

Her previous ruling seems to say she was "bound" by precedent -- given the rules that were placed on her as an independent arbitrator. If she receives a new assignment (not as an independent arbitrator, but as a league official) that specifically states that she should determine what a fair punishment would be -- then she might make a different decision.

Of course, this might prevent her from acting as an independent arbitrator in the future -- i could very well see her denying such a position due to the potential claims of a conflict of interest.

I agree w/having Brissett ready to go week 1 and have Watson start the suspension at that point too … that’s the smart way to go

j/c...

Of course.



https://www.amtamassage.org/continuing-education/national-convention/

I think I agree with you 100% ... I was fine with the 6 game suspension because that's the framework. I was not fine with Watson being confirmed as a serial sexual abuser who acted in a predatory fashion ... which makes him a sexual predator no matter how people want to play games with the wording. I am not fine with Watson still lying and showing zero accountability. But how I feel about Watson - and the suspension are two different issues.

LOL

That's where my head has been on this for a while now too.

Nobody knows where this is all going to end up, although as Browns fans we probably have a good idea it will be bad for us. When Adam Schefter was asked some questions about the topic late yesterday, he said right now there are too many things up in the air and too many variables. That being said, if DW does not play for us at all this season how many games can any Browns fan expect us to win? I would say 6-7 and another lost season. With DW I think 11-12 wins would be realistic. Thoughts?

This seems to be the standard BS people toss out for trying to blame people who want accountability for watson's victims. Robinson plainly pointed out that he was a predator but people blame those of us who agree with her. She pointed out that watson is a liar. She pointed out just how egregious his acts were. She pointed out how he's shown no remorse. Yet rather than expect serious punishment for such disgusting things, they wish to continually shift the blame to the NFL, NFL fans and "Baker lovers" which I was never one of, to try and avoid the actual report Robinson put out. You know, if you were all a bunch of frat boys I would expect such childish behavior. But as it stands it's obvious you care more about football than how watson treated these women. And you've made looking to deflect the blame for it to everyone wanting watson held accountable a not so accomplished work of art.

You aren't wrong. Ignoring one person whose posts makes this place a cesspool has removed about 80% of the mention of Baker Mayfield for me. It's a really childish "Im a real Browns fan" argument and Mayfield's name seems to come up most from Watson defenders more than anyone else.

In her report she states:


I think she subtly let the NFL know they were not up to snuff with this. There was a rule without definition that was defined by an investigator after doing an investigation, that is a horrible look. It really screams of "we don't know how to define it ubt we know it when we see it". That is arbitrary and capricious. I would think it would have been better to stick with the legal definition sans any language in the CBA that defines sexual assault, and nothing that has been mentioned would violate the Texas penal code in that regard as far as I can see.

I also think this may be why there was no grand jury indictment, the behavior did not rise to the level indicated in Section 22.011.

While that's true there are other factors to consider. Both the NFL and NFLPA agreed that the old process was flawed and rewrote the policy because of it. So why would it be that if you felt the old way was so wrong you wrote an entire new process into your contract, that you should somehow use precedence of findings and punishments based on that old policy? It's like saying let's throw out the way we did it before and only hold onto the precedence set in those cases. They set up an entire new process with which to rule and yet the excuse is given that the new process adhere to prior decisions under a different set of rules.

I think if this thing goes to court the NFL can easily establish that this was several infractions all being adjudicated in one hearing and not a single infraction. Again, Robinson's own report spells out several infractions, not just one.

And while everyone is complaining about the NFL stepping in to ask for a harsher penalty, that was the structure of the new contractual agreement between the NFL and the NFLPA. The NFL has every right under that agreement to appeal the penalty. I'm not even sure I like that idea myself, but for people to complain about the NFL exercising its contractual rights I feel is quite short sighted and displace blame.

Robinson made it clear this case was worse than any non violent case the NFL has ever seen. That as such she could understand a stiffer penalty. So it's worse than anything the NFL has ever seen but the penalty should not be stiffer than the NFL has ever seen?

Since the old NFL policy was rewritten and agreed upon by both parties, I do not think using the old precedent under the old policy will hold up if the NFLPA sues in court. I think the very report Robinson wrote will be used by the NFL to show that these cases are worse than anything the NFL has ever seen and will reinforce their call for a longer suspension.

Yeah, I think that's a good assessment. This whole thing should be a wake-up call to the league, but whether it actually will be or not is another thing. From just looking at the way he has conducted himself since 2007, I feel like Goodell wants to preserve a wide range of interpretations and punishments because that essentially makes him the gravity of power. The cumulative effect of all that has led to the lack of formal definitions, lack of formal punishments, and like you said, inconsistencies leading to arbitrary and capricious determinations.

Perhaps the next NFL commissioner should be someone who has worked within Louisiana's legal system

Totally out of context.

Seems to be inline with what others are saying...

She's not wrong. I mean, you could have all the analysts talk about precedent, past laws, common law, civil law, bird law, and everything else until their faces are blue...

...but at the end of the day, the dictator does what he wants to do, because he has all the power.

Just some food for thought, bro. Goodell is the Commissioner of the league, yet he works for the 31 owners. Think about that for a moment. Ask yourself how many other businesses, cooperations, etc have such a set-up? Now ask yourself who is really controlling the NFL's decisions?

Calvin Ridley, a black player, received a year long suspension for violating the "integrity of the league." He lost his salary for the year which is the neighborhood of $11 million. What did he do that was so horrible. He played a parlay sheet during a time when he was not even active as a player.

Stephen Ross, a white owner [btw, there are no black owners in the NFL] was charged w/compromising the "integrity of the league." He is suspended through October 17th and was fined $1.5 million, which is basically tipping money considering his wealth.

I could go on w/the details of the Snyder and Kraft situations, but you have probably read them by now. If not, I'll send you links that talk about illegal sex trafficking, intimidation of witnesses, improper breaching of emails and texts, running a shadow investigation, bribery, intimidation of witnesses, pornography, forcing women to work as escorts, sexual misconduct, etc, etc.

Kraft received no punishment and Snyder was fined.

Who is really calling the shots? Goodell or the owners? Do you think that may be the genesis and ongoing "inconsistencies leading to arbitrary and capricious determinations?"

I was strictly speaking as to the intent behind her ruling and how I did not view it as a joke.

Hey Roger I'll do it for free 😉

What is out of context? I gave examples of what the NFL may use as legal strategy if the NFLPA sues. Robinson plainly laid out three different things watson was guilty of, not one.

The old policy was rewritten and agreed with by both sides. It's the new policy and not the old one. The only thing anyone seems to think should be held up in regards to the old agreement is the punishment phase while the rest of the new policy is fine. Why would you think that the NFL wouldn't use that in court? That if you have a totally new system in place you can't cling to a singular portion of the old policies?

Robinson made it plain that this was the most egregious non violent case the NFL has ever seen. So why wouldn't the NFL argue that and such, the penalty should also be harsher than previous cases?

I'm certainly not saying the NFL would win. I have no way of knowing. I'm just saying these are points I think the NFL may use if it goes to court and it's understandable why they would use this approach.

And I used the part I quoted as a jumping off point as to how I think the NFL may rebut the penalty phase of her decision.

The legal definition is different from state to state. There is no one national definition for what "sexual assault" is or is not. That's why there had to be a single definition put in place for the hearing. The definition that was implemented meets the requirements in some states and not in others. This wasn't a matter of her finger pointing at anything. It was simply a matter of her showing the guidelines she was using in making her ruling.

Maybe I’m alone in this but I can’t let Andrew Berry and Kevin Stefanski escape heavy criticism after reading judge Robinson’s assessment of the character of Watson in her 15 page documents.

In late mars 2022 the Browns GM hold a lengthy speech to America and the NFL community about his reasoning why his organization agreed on a groundbreaking monster contract who was worth $230m guaranteed money to a player who’s accused of multiple sexual harassment and had 20+ civil law suits that was hanging over his head. His opening monologue was similar to a husband who was being caught cheating and then trying to explain the unexplainable and in the end of his defense painted himself as a good guy who just had a little bit of unlucky moments, but in the end it’s nothing to worry about.

“We’re comfortable with what we know”
Our investigation team has worked with this for several months”

He and Kevin Stefanski then used the word “comfortable” several times and in the end of the press conference Stefanski went on almost as these allegations never existed and it was nothing to worry about and now it was business as usual.

A couple weeks later the NY Times published a article who painted a completely different picture and just a few days ago judge Robinson wrote in the 15 page long documents a piece where her assessment of Mr Watson that was devastating for those who vouched for him just a couple of months ago.

A lier.
A predator.
Egregious acts.
No remorse.
No accountability.

Totally the opposite of what we heard from Cleveland Browns GM and HC.

It raise the question if the Browns actually made a professional investigation or was it just lies?
It raise the question of how is our GM and HC skills regarding judging a players character?
It raise the question about the integrity and the moral compass among several key members inside the Browns organization?

I want to know of someone inside the Browns organization was against this? How was the internal discussions? A large organization where everybody think the same? Does this sound like a healthy environment? Why haven’t we heard from those who was against it or found the whole situation questionable?

It also raise questions about the integrity among local journalists.Especially the outspoken Ms. Mary Key Cabot? Simple question. Is she “comfortable” with her earlier assessments of his whole story or maybe she simply doesn’t care?

I know perfectly well that many of these questions will be kicked under the carpet. Nobody seems to be willing to take accountability for this fiasco and thats why the Cleveland Browns is always before the season starts in the spotlights for the wrong reasons.

So the big risk for Watson, as far as deciding to take the NFL to court, is losing.


The NFL suspends him indefinitely, with a year as his possible reinstatement. He decides to file suit, if the NFL doesn't exempt him he then plays this year. He then loses his case and begins his suspension next year. So he played for his million dollar salary and is suspended the season when his salary sky rockets.

Follow
View Profile
Report: NFL will appoint outsider to handle appeal of Watson ban
Dan Mennella - 2h ago
Comments
link

Share

The NFL has signaled its dissatisfaction with the six-game suspension levied on Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson, by filing to appeal the decision.

The appeal process, as agreed upon by the league and the NFLPA in the most recent collective bargaining agreement, can be heard by none other than NFL commissioner Roger Goodell himself.

But according to a new report, Goodell won't be playing the judge in the appeal of Watson's case. Instead, the league will farm out those duties to "someone outside the league office," per Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk.

The reported development comes just a day after it was revealed that the league would be appealing the six-game ban handed down to Watson by arbitrator Sue L. Robinson, a former federal judge who was commissioned to serve as the jury and judge, so to speak, in the first suspension case of its type in league history. Prior to this process, cases were adjudicated by Goodell, with his judgments often coming under withering criticism. The new process was installed to relieve Goodell and the league of that burden, and to assure the players and fans that a fair decision could be reached by an ostensibly independent party.

Robinson's decision found that a six-game suspension was appropriate given the precedent set by the league in similar cases in the past. Critics said it was too lenient, given that Watson was accused of sexual assault or harassment by upward of 30 women, with the number of alleged victims virtually unprecedented for an NFL player.

Among those dissenters, apparently, was the NFL itself.

Prior to Robinson's ruling, the league had reportedly offered to settle Watson's case with a suspension of 12 games and a fine of nearly $10 million, but Watson's camp turned down the offer.

Meanwhile the NFLPA has vowed to adhere to Robinson's decision but has threatened to pursue a federal lawsuit if the length of Watson's suspension is changed through the appeal process. Watson's six-game ban was set to begin in Week 1, but according to Josina Anderson of CBS Sports HQ, Watson's legal team could pursue a temporary restraining order against an unfavorable decision levied through the appeal process, potentially making him available for the start of the season while the federal lawsuit plays out in court.


JosinaAnderson
@JosinaAnderson
·
Follow
Some are asking when Deshaun Watson would start to play & whether a potential temporary restraining order could be sought to get him to play WK1. My understanding is the NFLPA's statement still stands, at this time, to abide by Robinson's ruling--thereby not pursuing Wk1 via TRO.
11:03 AM · Aug 4, 2022
174
Reply
Copy link
........................................................................


JosinaAnderson
@JosinaAnderson
·
Follow
My understanding is the Union & Deshaun Watson's counselors haven't yet made an official determination to pursue a federal lawsuit--as such a lawsuit would set aside an improper decision by the appeal officer. Obviously u can't assert an improper decision until a final judgement.
10:53 AM · Aug 4, 2022
137
Reply
Copy link


Watson, who turns 27 in September, was not charged after two separate Houston-area grand juries declined to indict him following criminal investigations. He has settled 23 civil lawsuits, including several in recent days, reportedly leaving one outstanding civil case.

That's good insight. I've been contemplating his relationship with the owners for quite some time. At times, like you mention, he seems to be very subservient to the owners. Other times, he seems to go against the owners, or at least some of them. His leverage on that front is that he's really good on the front that they care the most about: making them money. He's also outstanding at being a lightning rod, which I'm sure is another thing the owners appreciate.

JC...

Anyone report the information above...the offer of a 12 game suspension and a fine of nearly $10 mil..?

I don't necessarily think that the NFL and the NFLPA agreed the old process was wrong. I think the NFLPA wanted to negotiate more leverage away from Goodell and the owners and the current construct was as far as the league was willing to go. The problem, too, is that while the NFL agreed to a new process, they didn't agree to "sentencing guidelines" like have been discussed. As far as I can tell, it all centered around who makes the decision, and the league even retained its ability to overrule that decision. Also, processes and punishments are two different things. Comparing it to the courts, for instance, you can completely rewrite procedural rules while having no effect on what the sentencing rules are. If no further guidance is given to sentencing rules, all that you are left with is precedent. I'm 90% confident that is where her mind went.

I don’t think that argument would even come up in court, to be honest with you. If it did, I don’t think it would be a central one. If this goes to court, I think it would center on the contractual nature and focus more on the NFL’s willingness to negotiate in good faith, like Peen mentioned. I do think Watson would have an uphill battle in court, though, based more on the lack of the NFLPA to stick to their guns on that appeal provision.

As it all currently stands, though, without some sort of formalization for infraction penalties – and this goes way beyond Watson – the league definitely is upholding a punishment nature that is coinciding with being arbitrary and capricious.

j/c...

Buzbee currently holding a press conference. This will only ratchet up pressure on the NFL to hammer Watson.

"Crazy enough it just might work!"

I appreciate your response. It's certainly well thought out. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how it all plays out. The only thing I will say in response pertains to this....

I have no idea if you're right or wrong about the NFL trying to use the strategy that this hearing involved multiple infractions in a single hearing. However, if they could establish that it would blow the entire premise of looking at this as a single infraction out of the water. That would provide ample justification for far more than a six game suspension.

Now we will hear what a scum bag Buzzbee is yet again. Let the noise begin.

Thanks. Likewise. Honest question: did the NFL already make the assertion before her that it should be viewed as multiple infractions with one review?

From one non-expert outsider to another....

Wasn't that already baked into Robinson's report, though? She talked about a "pattern of behavior" and "egregious". I think she acknowledged that they were talking more than 1 infraction, and without getting into hard numbers, I got the feeling she believed the real number was much closer to 20-some than it was 0. What I think she was referring to later on was the fact that he hadn't been in trouble before. As you know, players get punished much more harshly if they have been in front of the principal before.

They won. Watson was found to have done the things he was accused of. It was written for all the world to see. He was punished. The entire media is in full mob mentality railing against Watson. The NFL is likely to add to the suspension. And Buzbee's clients, and presumably himself, got paid.

What's the point of the press conference?

I already beat you to that question three minutes earlier, multiverse me.

Now Playing " The Cleveland Browns Story "

Brought to you by Jimmy Haslam ( 10 yeas straight )

Produced by Andrew Berry

Directed Keven Stefanski

So are you from the dimension that has John Krazinsky as Mr. Fantastic, or the one where everyone is dead except Dr. Strange?

Someone outside the league office? What is the point? Why not just abide by Judge Robinson's ruling?

They should try and find a well respected retired federal judge.

I'm not sure what that has anything to do with here. She based her findings on what the precedent is in former cases involving a single infraction. If the NFL can show it was multiple infractions that opens the door for changing the ruling in regards to the punishment phase.

Pay attention to what Buzbee and the ladies are saying. Not only are they calling out the NFL to correct Judge Robinson's light suspension, but they are calling out the Texas DA for not interviewing all the alleged victims. I wouldn't be surprised to see a subpoena of some kind to secure the NFL and Hearing records. The pot just got a whole lot hotter for Watson and the Browns.

The one with the crocodile Loki.

If she still made the ruling in the context of it being multiple infractions vs making the ruling in light of it being viewed as one infraction to me would carry some weight.

I think I covered that in my response to 05 but I will respond to you as well. Her ruling included that this was the harshest penalty she felt she could based on rulings of a single infraction. that was the precedent she seemed to be relying on. I will agree with you that the principal doesn't give as harsh a punishment for the first time a kid is called into her office. But what is or isn't harsh would be dependent on how many rules the child has broken.

If you don't make it to the principals office until you've broken several rules, it's not the same as a first offense.

I don't disagree. But as we've seen in the past, such punishments have been handed down for a single infraction previously. It seemed as though that was a factor she weighed in her decision from looking at the report.

The definition used in the report was created after the incidents, more so if feels like it was created from the investigation of the incidents, and as a result of information found in the investigation. The reason to contrast to Texas specifically is without formal standards set prior to the incidents Texas law should prevail as the incidents occured in Texas.

Using a definition from Hawaii, for instance, makes no sense if Watson has never been there much less received a massage there.

Without formal definitions ever player in the league should be scared. The league can move the bar for what is or isn't sexual assault on a whim, and deprive players of being able to earn their salary.

The last sentence is pretty crucial.

There are 50 states in this nation. The NFL nor 30 of their teams are located in Texas. Texas law has no bearing on this situation. How can you give a definition on a law before knowing you will be holding a hearing concerning such a law? Should the NFL sit down and write the definition of every law that may or may not come up at any point in the future? Your seeing need to place the blame on everyone but the guilty party here seems very odd. Not unusual by any leans, but odd.

So are you saying that the NFL should have expected that one of their players should or would be guilty of sexual assault and prepared for that in advance?

j/c:

Ol' Rog doesn't want to take heat delivering the news. Get a League friendly to deal the blow.

I don't really have a problem with who announces justice as long as justice prevails.

j/c:

Peter C. Harvey was the first African American to serve as New Jersey Attorney General. Harvey was appointed by New Jersey governor Jim McGreevey as acting attorney general on February 15, 2003, and was confirmed by the New Jersey Senate as attorney general on June 16, 2003. Harvey served until 2006, when he was succeeded by Zulima Farber. Following his resignation as attorney general, he became a partner in the New York City law office of Patterson, Belknap, Webb, and Tyler.

Harvey was one of the advisers to the National Football League in the league's 2017 personal conduct investigation of Dallas Cowboys running back Ezekiel Elliott. He has been designated by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to hear the NFL's appeal of the suspension of Deshaun Watson.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_C._Harvey

(e)(v)
The Disciplinary Officer’s disciplinary determination will be final and binding subject only to the right of either party to appeal to the Commissioner. The appeal shall be in writing within three business days of the Disciplinary Officer’s decision, and any response to the appeal shall be filed in writing within two business days thereafter. The appeal shall be limited to arguments why, based on the evidentiary record below, the amount of discipline, if any, should be modified. The Commissioner or his designee will issue a written decision that will constitute full, final and complete disposition of the dispute and will be binding upon the player(s), Club(s) and the parties to this Agreement.

There is nothing within the CBA that states "an independent or neutral party" will issue the written decision. It clearly states the Appeal will be heard by The Commissioner or his designee. A negotiated item by the NFLPA in the CBA.

It's also interesting that it's spelled out that "the appeal shall be limited to arguments why, based on the evidentiary record that the amount of discipline, if any, should be modified."

It will be interesting how the NFLPA is going to fight the evidence presented that made Judge Robinson determine that Watson committed multiple infractions of the PCP.

Then why does the NFL have more than one rule? "Don't do anything we don't like" really is all they need in your view. Laws and rules are defined, that's what makes them laws and rules. Without defining it is arbitrary and capricious. If you don't know where the line is, how do you know you won't cross it?

This is not a novel or new concept. Do you not have laws in TN that provide boundaries on what is legal or not?

So, what you're saying is the NFL is responsible for letting Watson know that even though he knows that abusing women is not approved by the NFL or society, the NFL is responsible for letting Watson know that 1 abuse is a minimum six-week suspension, 5 abuses constitute double that making it 10-weeks, 10 abuses making it 20-weeks, and so on. That way Watson would have known that he was getting in the danger zone of missing 2 years or more. You have to be kidding me. I get it, then Watson could say, "hey, I'm stopping at 8 so I won't lose the whole year" - LOL

No I am saying not having a definition means they can make anything they like fit the narrative. It isn't about numbers, it is about the behavior and what crosses a line.

Do you know what DUI is in your state? How about let's not have an actual definition and let the cop just decide how they see fit.

Where I work they have taken the time to delineate what is acceptable and what isn't. It really isn't hard, and it isn't novel.

I have only followed this peripherally. Can someone explain to me exactly what Watson has been accused of? And I don't want to hear sexual misconduct or sexual assault. Those are legal terms. I want a description of the things he did to understand what is so egregious. The reports I see are not very specific. From what I have come across, he has at a minimum gotten a boner during massages and tried to get a happy ending. At the maximum, he didn't rape anyone and wasn't violent. There is a whole lot of middle ground. I don't understand how what he did was any worse than what Kraft did let alone what roethlisberger was accused of.

If the description is too vulgar to put on this forum feel free to PM me.

No person should have any issue with abusing a woman is crossing the line and is not acceptable. Abusing 24-30 women is a serial abuser and shouldn't need any explanation or guidelines. To your point, the state you are in becomes your responsibility to know the law. The state has no obligation to inform you of the laws in that state. If you get pulled over in Ohio where the drunk driving law is .08 but you're from Indiana where that same law is .10, do you get a lighter sentence because you didn't know the law was different in Ohio? If you drink 2 bottles of vodka and get behind the wheel, you already know that you have violated the laws of every state. There's no way in hell that anyone can present a valid argument that Watson was unaware that abusing 24-30 women was a major violation of the PCP and was subjecting himself to major penalties no matter where he committed the act.

They do have the right to appeal.

I get the point now. Hell, this guy was on part of the group that suspended Elliot, where they would not even allow the lead investigator to be present at the hearing an didn't use her report that showed texts of his accuser talking about blackmailing Zeke. Watson and the Browns are toast.

I know and that isn't how I meant it. I was wondering why they were choosing someone outside of the league office. It doesn't matter now. Watson is toast.

Maybe.

It could be probable.

This is all a done deal at this point. It’s been a farce from the start.

I’m not saying Watson is innocent … heck maybe he deserves a severe sentence … but the idea that this was ever going to be a fair process is idiotic

j/c:

Buzbee lie? Never!

Buzbee is a clout chaser and money grabber. The fact that the women are connected with him makes them less credible in my eyes.

If I were to guess, a majority of the accusers piled onto the lawsuit after it gained steam.

Just a hunch.

That isn't a hunch. It's exactly what happened. They could all be true stories. I don't know. But yes, that is how it went down.

I can't verify if this is the same "woman with a son" story -- if it is, Buzbee interviewed the woman and did not accept her as a client. That story had legs a while ago and was put to bed. It seems to me that it's the same story being rehashed to throw mud in the water - but I can't verify. And to be fair - you and some others aren't really interested in the truth just so long as you can throw shade at Buzbee and deflect from Watson.

https://www.si.com/nfl/browns/news/...ent-accuser-who-had-son-undermine-claims

I like that even though the syntax is terrible. I think it will make a good sig.

That's cute.

So you aren't man enough to actually address me.
And you claim to block me but clearly still read my posts.
Funny that when I provided a post that was informative about the story about a woman with a son who wasn't Buzbee's client (after you claimed Buzbee lied) - you try to insinuate it was shouting people down.
Funny that you need to try to become the grammar police in order to try to insult someone. Personally I think the sentence reads just fine, you can educate me as to why it isn't.

You have been proven so completely wrong on the Watson situation that the only 'go to' you have is to claim people expressing a different opinion are trying to shout you down. You keep spamming that when people simply express an opinion. And it is so incredibly typical "Vers" that - after you endlessly claimed this was a witch hunt, implying Watson was innocent - and then you tried to get the board to all buy into accepting Sue Robinson's verdict ... that now the verdict is in and she has unequivocally stated Watson is guilty on many fronts, you are trying to not acknowledge or accept Sue Robinson's findings.

Well, it was nice knowing ya, Deshaun!

Starting to feel the reality set in.

Yes, "toast".

Best case scenario is to win a suit against the NFL in the hopes of a reduction to 8-10 games. Even 12 would let Watson see some action and shake off the rust... If not he will have gone 32 months without live action by next September.

I wouldn't petition to be eligible to play -- start serving the suspension now.

Lol! I'm starting to love Buzbee. Dude cries crocodile tears about how nobody was calling and after he gets paid says he wasn't taking the NFL'S calls.

Dude probably got paid so much he doesn't have to give a flip for years.

I have been thinking about this because there is no way that the appeal will fail and he is going to get nailed. I kinda agree w/you just to get it over with and not have the suspension carry over to next year. On the other hand, there are times when you have to make a stand and not cave in to "the man." Furthermore, I would love to see the NFL's dirty deeds uncovered.

I don't think the NFL will agree to this, but what a settlement? Here is what I would offer if I was Watson's camp. Leave the suspension at 6 games, but impose a fine. A large fine. Let's say $10 million. But here is the cool part. Instead of the money going to the NFL..........the money goes to to Women's Rape Crisis Centers in various locations. Watson also offers to work in community service projects that champion the cause of women. Perhaps he sets up trust funds that provide scholarships for young girls who have been abused?

Are we so blood-thirsty that we demand punishment w/out any positive actions or do we want to invoke change and help those who have faced abuse?

j/c:

Deshaun Watson nixed settlement offer from NFL that would have suspended him for less than a year, per report
The Browns QB could have ended all his suspension drama if he would have accepted this offer from the NFL

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...ded-him-for-less-than-a-year-per-report/

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Deshaun Watson accuser says she received 'multiple death threats' following suspension

https://news.yahoo.com/deshaun-watson-accuser-says-she-215547973.html

Not sure what good accepting a 12 game suspension would have done. Our season would have been lost. They were hoping that the Judge would give credence to precedence, which is what I said months ago.......and she did. The NFL did not care what a former Federal Judge said on her very first case and have dismissed her and hired a lackey to appease public opinion. It's been a witch hunt from the beginning.

And yet the NFL couldn't define what sexual assault was, prior to the investigation. Not even in general terms. Not in specific terms. It took an investigator to define it for them, which is carries its own issue of integrity.

If the law says DUI is .08 and you blow .07 do you think it is ok for the cop to decide that's close enough i.e. change the rule during or after the investigation?

The NFL's system is broken. Most corporations have the wherewithal to actually define what is unacceptable according to their conduct policies, and it doesn't involve "we'll know it when we see it". and it leads to caprious discipline and abuse from the commish. Even when they seat someone to make it look like they are trying to play fair they screw that pooch as well.

Wow, I'm so damn glad we got this quarterback and all his controversy. Dude still might not play a down this year. That'd be 2 years of not playing.

It's not really "caving". You still sue, you just accept the fact that a suspension is forthcoming. Say you're going to start serving your six week suspension, carefully craft a remorse statement for the pain and anguish you've caused everybody, say that you're hopeful a court will find in favor of the original suspension, let the NFLPA do the dirty work.

As for the rest; the league won't allow (let alone be a part of) some custom-crafted punishment protocol. They'll move forward with some of their own "repentance" programs this upcoming season... and throw a stink-eye at Deshaun and the Browns while doing it. You can book that.

I prefaced my comments by saying that I didn't think the NFL would agree to it...or something like that. But, I feel it's a much better idea than what they are doing. Don't you?

Btw..........I agree w/this part:

100.

The media is so comical. The outrage is hilarious. And not a fist in the air about Snyder and the WFT.

The mob mentality is insane. And scary.

The worse part is, for from witnessing the talking heads of the national media, from the instant reaction to the Mayfield Pick on the day he was drafted, to the Colin cowdonkey's of the world who have tried to talk Mayfield off the Browns for the past 4 years,
the thing is,
they have finally gotten Mayfield off the Browns, and the Browns are back to being a 14 loss team every year.
That is what's on the horizon and we're just supposed to deal with it.

Only encouraged, the Nat'l media will next target Myles and Clowney to bring a storm of raining dirt onto the world of browns' fans.
Remember OBJ, that was just a couple months ago. It never ends.

Sure it's a good idea, file it right up there with the rest of the league's good ideas... oh, wait.

I'd co-sign on that in a heartbeat, I just know I'd actually see that pig flying before it would ever happen. To be real, and step in Deshaun's shoes, he's already burnt 6-10M on legal and payouts... doubt he would cough up 10M to avoid something he'll get paid for anyway. Also not really sure it's feasible to drop the guard "completely" before all possible plaintiffs in civil trials have been remedied.

Good thought though.

I still maintain I think it would be badass if Watson retired. Or go play in the CFL.

I would support that 100%. Instead of being subject to a sham disciplinary process, don't let them subject you to it. Remove yourself from the equation.

He should have plenty of money from his first and part of his second contract. Screw em.

Rish...this would be nuts to do. After walking away and the 24hr cooling off period elapsed, you'd be thinking, what the hell did I just do?!?

If Watson is suspended for a full year and no fine is imposed, he will have made $44.965M this year and have a one year paid vacation. Sign me up!

He's "only" made $51M from his time with Texans and after considering taxes, agent fees, living expense, settlement and attorney fees, team trip to the Bahamas, jewelry, cars, charitable doations etc....he'll want the money.

I'd play the games the NFL wants to play for $230M guaranteed. America loves a redemption story!

After Berry restructures his contract again in 2023 and pays another ~$40M in signing bonus money and reduces his base salary, I'd say suspend me again for 2023 and give me that ~$40M paid vacation.

3rd and 20...I posted about that offer to settle by the NFL over 8 hours ago.

The article I posted link said the following...

Quote

Robinson's decision found that a six-game suspension was appropriate given the precedent set by the league in similar cases in the past. Critics said it was too lenient, given that Watson was accused of sexual assault or harassment by upward of 30 women, with the number of alleged victims virtually unprecedented for an NFL player.

Among those dissenters, apparently, was the NFL itself.

Prior to Robinson's ruling, the league had reportedly offered to settle Watson's case with a suspension of 12 games and a fine of nearly $10 million, but Watson's camp turned down the offer.

The NFL offered to settle the case for a 12 games suspension and a fine in the neighborhood of $8-$10 mill...and Watson turned it down. That is when the NFL appointed Peter C. Harvey to handle the appeal.

Woo is me about Watson. He's being so mistreated - he's so misunderstood. That damn NFL is racist and coming after the guy simply because he's black. The mob mentality is insane and scary. The media is acting like a lynch mob. The sham disciplinary process.

These are just a few comments read here about the plight of Watson.

You know what you don't see? You don't see any remorse from Watson, the Browns, or his supporters in this forum for the now 53 settled civil claimant's generated by Watson's predatory actions. Think about that for a moment - 53 freaking civil suits directly associated with his mistreatment of women with one still unsettled. Mistreatment so egregious that if you added up all the women in the last 10-years of the NFL that had alleged claims of misconduct against women by players in the NFL, you still wouldn't have as many complaints as Watson has had that's associated with his mistreatment of women. To think that there are people on this forum that believe that the paltry 6-game suspension being appealed is excessive. Really?

If there has ever been a single player that earned the most severe penalty the NFL has ever handed out it would be Watson. 53 civil suits directly tied to his egregious treatment of women, and we have people defending his actions here while campaigning for anywhere from zero to less than a six-game suspension. I'm a Browns fan but a fan that is humiliated that this guy could eventually be playing for Cleveland. Funny how many people will check their morals at the gate just to win a football game.

You can’t be serious. He is a victim? Have you read the Robinson report? She convicted him, not exonerated him.

Come on people have some class, it's a game. What kind of mind does that take?

Careful , I recently took a ban for making political comments in PFF.

The judge knew what she was doing when she called him guilty of sexual assault and a predator. There was no way all the millionaires and billionaires involved could let that stand. And Goodell is a puppet, OR is he? Is this a race thing? Gander - Goose, Goose - gander! Who knows...? {*Sounds of wrist slitting and sky falling} Well, they should have known. They did know, they didn't care. It was all rigged. yada yada yada


^ This is what this thread now sounds like. But nobody is saying, this is on Watson and a greedy owner/FO. Houston fleeced us. When and if he can play again, what are the odds he will still be anything like the DW you thought you were getting? The NFL wants us to lose. Oh, and let's not forget a fanbase that practically ran Baker out on a rail. Can we talk about any of that leading to this?

How can any person with common sense overlook these circumstances?

We also have Judge Robinson’s 15 page documents where we can read her conclusion why she thinks that Watson is a lier who show no signs of remorse. When a former judge with so many years of experience witnessing all sorts of different human characters gives that assessment then every sane person should pay attention.

I come back to this once again.

This is the Browns new front face that Andrew Berry and Kevin Stefanski is “comfortable” with What do such a statement tells us about the working environment inside the Browns leadership?

i still think, at this juncture, the best case for us:

Settlement of 10 games or so, pay a large fine (it’s basically Haslam’s money, not his) that will go to women’s organizations, and agree to therapy/rehab program.

D4...If the NFL's last number was a 12 game suspension, translating it in terms of ...'realistic negotiating'...it means Watson's lawyers can likely get it down to 10 games.

The money, $10.5 billion is not a real factor and should be ignored...Watson did just sign a contract for 1/4 of a billion dollars.

So the negotiations can be broken down to the difference between the 12 games that is said to be the NFL's number and 10 games that is likely the bottom number of games the NFL might accept.

JMO, but Watson and his lawyers should be able to get this done and if they can't, Watson should fire them.

Oh sure pay attention to her if your sane, and at the same time ignore her decision.

The hypocrisy is hilarious.

j/c

It occurred to me this morning reading thru posts - there is A LOT going on here. Hell, you probably knew that and it's me that's a bit slow? But there's almost 4 distinct sub topics regarding Watson and this issue we are discussing ... and it seems that sometimes we have people discussing or arguing over different aspects as if they were the same issue. They aren't.

1. You have the issue of Watson and the allegations levied against him - is he guilty of sexual misconduct / sexual abuse / sexual assault. As the face of the Browns and the owner of the largest guaranteed contract in the history of the NFL, that matters a lot to me. The only person to have been privy to most of / all of the evidence and to have questioned the parties involved is Sue Robinson and she unequivocally came to the conclusion Watson was guilty. Some fans flat don't care - which is fine. Some fans act like they care but then deflect and don't want to accept Sue Robinson's ruling. Some like myself accept the ruling and believe it when Sue Robinson talks about how egregiously Watson behaved and that he acted in a a predatory manner.

2. You have the 6 game suspension Robinson handed down. Is it sufficient, should it be longer? Robinson spelled out that it was the maximum sentence the NFL framework allows for. Personally I can live with the fact and accept that the 6 games doesn't reflect the severity of what Robinson found him guilty of - but that the NFL made their bed with their legal agreement and framework. Some want DW to serve a suspension befitting the predatory behavior and numbers involved. Some think the NFL needs to simply accept the ruling.

3. You have the NFL being legally permitted to appeal the suspension now that DW has been found guilty by the independent arbitrator. Is that fair and balanced? Does that undermine the independent investigator? Clearly they can legally do this - once DW was found guilty, this avenue was always open. Robinson knew it, the NFLPA and Watson knew it and Goodell and the NFL knew it ... Personally I think point 4 below might have made Watson and the NFLPA believe that this option was unlikely to be used ... but when Robinson condemned Watson in so many ways, so succinctly and unequivocally while sighting/implying that her ruling might have been inadequate ... that really opened the door for the NFL to use this process. And so there is a lot of posts/debate directly regards whether the NFL should or should not appeal.

4. Finally you have the NFL and their long history of dealing with owner's issues and transgression in a wholly hypocritical fashion when compared to the players. Very recent and public issues with Kraft, Snyder and now Miami. None of the owners has ever been held to the same standard as any of the players. It's impossible to draw a comparison to Watson per-se as no owner (or player) has been accused by 26 women of sexual misconduct/abuse/assault, but the disconnect and hypocrisy is blatant. Some posters are fixating on this - others acknowledge the issue without thinking it should deflect from Watson and his actions. Personally it feels like focusing on this must mean posters somehow believe that Watson does not need to be held accountable because owners have by and large not been held accountable either. In a case like Snyder - the allegations are every bit as numerous and serious as the accusations against Watson.

Mixed in with this you have numerous other subtleties - the term 'non violent sex assault', whether coercion and manipulation are considered "force", despite Sue Robinson definitively finding Watson guilty we have posters still trying to float the idea that Watson is guilty of transgressions only defined by a poorly written NFL agreement, you have accusations that Sue Robinson is both a stooge that was used/ignored or that she is in cahoots with the NFL and then finally the fact that we probably all recognize the NFL and Goodell themselves have no morals and are really only interested in optics and their decisions have little to do with Watson and his guilt or accountability. (oh and I nearly forgot the claims that posters morality on Watson is allegedly influenced by their support for our former QB).

All of which makes this one giant poop sandwich for all of us no matter which side of the issues we come down on. Even to those that wrote in anger and frustration that they aren't Browns fans anymore. Ey Ey Ey. Personally at this point I doubt the trade will ever be worth it (on multiple levels) and I blame Haslam 100%.

Even if he's suspended a year how is it not worth it?

I know you don't agree with this but the Browns had to do something at QB. They did not believe in Baker and were not committed to him long term. They needed a quarterback. They got a proven one who isn't even in the prime of his career yet.

And the Browns spent 20 years wasting first round draft picks. Sometimes multiple in the same year. The draft pick angle is being overplayed.

A one year suspension still makes this worth it. Anything beyond a year and now you can start to have that discussion.

The sucky part about a year is we are wasting talent this year. But if you have a good QB for 10 years after that you are still giving yourself a shot.

Yep. And one side is expressing their opinions and the other side continues to shout down and belittle the other side for stating opinions.

I must have missed it. And I thought I had some new, juicy info (sighs).

What sides? Aren't we all browns fans in here?

There's a whole river of tears in that one quote. I don't have a clue how he posts that crap with a straight face and expects people to believe him. He can go from bully to moderator to gloom and doom to victimized poster faster than I can keep track of which persona he's using.

Regarding Watson and the Browns... I'm sure they're disappointed, but per the trade they made to get him and the contract they gave him, this wasn't a 1-year all-chips-in-the-middle type of move. This move was made for the next 5,10,15 years in mind. IMO, the FO is of the mindset that they just need to ride this out best they can and it'll just end up being a speed bump in the grand scheme of things. I think they're pragmatic like that.

That said....

I thought about it yesterday, and my opinion is that I hope this whole thing goes nuclear-level ish-show from here on out. I hope everyone starts suing everyone, the Texans somehow get involved again, stuff gets leaked, we gotta go back to the arbitrator multiple times. I'm talking never-before-seen-not-even-by-the-NFL level incompetence and hypocrisy leading to all the drama and outrage imaginable because every person involved has more than earned it at this point (Watson, the Browns with their exhaustive investigation nonsense, the NFL for doubling down on its sham process, the Texans for enabling and then slipping through the cracks, and even Tony "they didn't call enough so I stopped picking up the phone" Buzbee. I hope they all catch fire at some point going forward.

The AMTA 2022 National Convention will be held in Cleveland, Ohio August 25-27. Reconnect with your massage therapy community, hear from inspiring speakers and get hands-on training in new techniques. Save your spot now to ensure your first choice of sessions.

Because of course it had to be this.

j/c

I've stayed out of the debate around whether DW is a dirt-bag / sexual predator or a guy misunderstood / scammed. I'll never know the real truth regardless of how worked up I get about it...BUT...

Following up on Bone's comment...who/what exactly is "the NFL" that is appealing the decision of the person put in charge of making the decision? Saying "the NFL" when the appropriate word is "Goodell" is a lie...plain and simple. It is - and always has been - Goodell.

Now "the NFL" gets to appoint a person outside of "the NFL" - who is completely aligned with "the NFL" - to be the guy to decide what is "fair"...even after the person mutually agreed-upon to be "the decider" has...decided. There is a new process...that process was followed...that process has been ignored and exposed for the farce that it is.

This trial/hearing/whatever is a joke. (Note: That is my opinion on "the NFL"s "appeal" here. It is said with no opinion regarding DW's guilt or innocence, the judge/non-judge decision, determination or commentary.)

It is unfathomable to imagine the Steelers, Ravens, Raiders, Cowboys, Patriots, etc having to sit and wait for "the NFL" to met out it's self-defined justice...again.

You hit the nail on the head. There are multiple lines of conversation going on here. To me, it seems intuitive that you can find fault with both Watson's conduct AND how the league is/has handled things poorly, but somehow that can get you berated. Not surprising for this day and age though.

We disagree - that's okay right?

It's simple - I think having Baker and 3 first round picks (and other draft picks) and $1/4 Billion is a better than all the negative press, the uncertainty, the taint, having a convicted (by the NFL) sexual predator as the face of the franchise, and having a once elite QB be the tarter who may not have played a snap in the NFL for nearly 2 1/2 years before he plays a single own for the Browns. . . . I know you judge Baker in the harshest light, I don't. And even if it was Jake Delhomme, Josh McCown or Kelly Holcomb versus this trade for Watson ... I'd say it was a bad trade for the same reasons. Again - it's an opinion that differs from yours which is fine. It will be interesting to see how BM does for a bad team in CLT. Maybe you're 100% right to think he's trash - maybe he will play like his last 9 games of 2020 and the uninjured portion of 2021 and you will have to re-evaluate. The nice thing is we will see that part of the discussion play out.

If there's something to be learned from this as a fan, it's that (somehow) it's possible for everyone to be wrong at the same time.

I agree with the scorched earth ish-show exposure. This thing needs to blow up.

I think the FO absolutely did a chips-in-the-middle move...and unnecessarily at that. The replacement QB (now Brissett), the someday-QB's contract and the loss of (3) straight 1st Rd picks (and then some) is the kind of move that can set back an organization for years if it blows up. I hope not. But chips-in-the-middle is exactly how I describe what the FO did. (Disclaimer: I wouldn't not be surprised if it was JH pushing in the chips.)

I think Haslam had a definite (maybe full) say in the move. You couldn’t make such a move as a GM/President unless the owner was with it 100%

Because it's perfectly fine for Vers to attack anyone that disagrees with his thought process but to question him or worst yet expect Watson to be held accountable for his actions then you're shouting him down.

I mean really, it's gotten so bad that now we have entered race into the equation to try and support our stand.

Like I posted earlier, we have an NFL player that now has either directly or indirectly settled or had settled due to his predatory actions, 53 civil complaints about his mistreatment of women. Even with that said, there are still people that believe Watson's initial 6-game suspension is excessive. That's 53 civil suits that had every single one of them with the name Watson attached to them.

It's no secret that if you took every single investigation of NFL players over the last 10-years involving something to do with the treatment of women you wouldn't come close to the number of civil suits that have been filed and settled with Watson's name attached. There's still at least one more to go too. To think, we have posters on this site that believe Watson is being mistreated. Even after we have a 3rd party review the evidence who made a point to talk about how egregiously Watson behaved and acted in a predatory manner. The person that had access to all of the evidence and listening to the parties state their case who unequivocally came to the conclusion Watson was guilty. Now Vers may not care and that's his prerogative. He can try and deflect the facts all he wants. As much as it's his right to deflect, it's also my right to believe and accept her professional opinion when Sue Robinson talks about how egregiously Watson behaved and that he acted in a a predatory manner.

Now, after yesterday's Buzbee's press conference, we find out that the infamous Grand Jury Hearings of no indictment that so many hang their hats on (including the Browns) had a DA that presented zero alleged victims for testimony in one and only one alleged victim Solis in the other. You want to talk about someone being victimized, how can a DA take a case to a GJ and not present any testimony evidence from any alleged victim when you have 20 something criminal complaints? I wouldn't be surprised to see Buzbee subpoena the NFL records to present to the DA at this point. I do not think it was a comment in passing by when Buzbee made a candid point to point out the DA's lack of presentation to the initial GJ's. Criminally, this may not be over for Watson.

Bottom line, a difference of opinion is a right on this board. When those views are expressed that are different than yours, that's all it is. Not agreeing with your stand or posts is not shouting you down though. However, bulling your point doesn't excuse you from receiving a like response.

3rd and 20...I'm glad you brought it up again...

We seem to be the only board members who picked up on the fact that the NFL had made a proposal that was short of their stated 12 month/indefinite suspension...

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.

Speaking strictly for myself. I am deflated and disappointed.

I needed to know what Robinson had to say. I respect her background. It was revealing. I never wanted to get ahead of the process that was established.

Robinson brought clarity to DW's behavior. No matter what words are used to define what took place. He was wrong. Not violent as in used forced. But wrong from every moral angle. The only exception was the consensual cases.

Robinson was right in her ruling. She was right because she used the framework provided her. Within that framework her ruling was correct.

The baked in appeal process IMO is nonsense. There should be no appeal process to either side. It completely negates the role of Robinson. However, that was what was agreed upon by both parties in the collective bargaining agreement.

The "NFL" and their approach to be a judicial system in their own right is a complete farce. Ross, Kraft, Jones, Snyder, Haslam, and others will never police their own actions. Goodell has puppet strings attached to his mouth.

At his point I don't really care what is decided. It makes no difference. I never felt justice was a goal.

As a fan sure it has impact in wins and loses. But if you don't win it all you lose at some point.

I hope the Browns win games with whoever plays quarterback. I am a Browns fan first. Players come and go. Not all are good guys. I will like the players I like. Watson will have to show contrition and earn respect by actions that demonstrate morals and respect for others. Until then he is uniform with a number to me.

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'm going to stick to the question asked...minimum of 10 games and 10 million dollar fine.

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.

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl...ault-explained/s6wzqeubsd7s12b9h4aq6bqqz

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?

Why are they exclusive to Watson?

Because of the jump-off-the-edge decision to sign him at all costs. And some false assumption that there are only (and will only ever be, apparently) two QBs for the Browns... Baker, who is selfish, a terrible teammate, and sucks at football... or Deshaun Watson -- all-world elite QB, savior, future Super Bowl winner.

And then every argument (argument meaning anything with any grain of doubt) against the signing is met with this same fallible non-fact.

"There goes the cap!"
"That's a lot of draft capital!"
"240M guaranteed???"
"Those are some strong allegations!"
"This is going to be a PR nightmare!"
"I'm not sure I can cheer for this guy!"
"What if he's suspended for the whole year?!"

The poster is pat on the head like they "don't get it" and told... "That's the price to have a FQB for the next ten years."

Give me the line on Watson resigning in five years, maybe we can place a little wager... Maybe $50 -- or a loaf of bread -- whichever comes first.

Okie dokie.

I'm surprised something so sad garnered a response. You have like 85 other arguments going I'm surprised you even noticed that.

I can totally get on board with this. We have a pretty good football team without Watson....there will be exciting games and players to watch. Meanwhile, the NFL fighting not to implode will be an entertaining side show. I'm ready for the season to start!

So you don't care how the NFL goes about handing out punishment as long as the final result is something you agree with?

So you have a problem with a defense attorney saying their client is innocent as the cases are working their way through the courts?


Yikes.

Like I said, this is uncharted territory. With 53 civil claims settled with Watson's name attached combined with the detail Judge Robison provided with her writeup of Watson's predatory behavior, the punishment should meet the level of the action. There is no precedent that comes close the level of Watson's activities. I don't believe you can look at this lightly and expect the players to understand the severity the league takes with respect to women. With 53 civil claims settled, 1 unsettled, lack of remorse, refusal to negotiate or admit any guilt, and the possibility of criminal charges still on the table; Watson has to be the example to show that this type of behavior is totally unacceptable for a member of the NFL.

That said, this is what I consider a fair punishment:

1) As stated by Judge Robinson, Watson should be restricted from any outside massage therapy not approved by the team or league for the rest of his career. Any violation would be cause for a lifetime ban if investigated and found to being a violation.

2) Due to Watson's consistent and current lying about the facts in the case and denial of responsibility, Watson needs to undergo and complete a comprehensive league approved phycological medical treatment for his abuse of women before requesting a reinstatement to the league.

3) Due to the way the Browns structured Watson's contract whether for salary cap reasons or as a suspension protection, rather than picking an arbitrary amount, Watson should be fined 50% of his year 1 and 2 base salaries (1.035M plus 46M equals 47.035M divided by 2 = $23,517,500) to be donate to women crisis centers in his name by the NFL as restitution for his mistreatment of women.

4) Watson receives an indefinite suspension with a minimum of 12 games at which time he can request reinstatement if the following is met:

a) Successfully complete the phycological medical treatment as detailed in the agreement.
b) The Browns contract with Watson is amended to include the massage therapy clause with automatic forfeiture of any future contracted money from the date of any violation.
c) A letter from the Texas DA confirming that criminal charges are off the table.
d) The final open civil suit has been settled.
e) An open letter of apology to the women combined with the donation to the women crisis centers (the amount can be reduced 25% if reinstated for week 12, 10% if reinstated for week 15, or no reduction if completed after week 15)
f) Any future criminal or civil actions concerning women is grounds for an immediate lifetime ban.

5) If Watson and the NFLPA sue in Federal Court, all the above is off the table and the NFL will institute the indefinite suspension with an open reinstatement date of their choosing should they win in Federal Court due to Watson's non remorse.

And maybe that's true for some. But just a suggestion. Read back through this thread and try to gauge how much and how many of the posts have no mention of what watson did and only focus on the process, how terrible the NFL is for trying to increase the punishment, how it's a witch hunt and every other method if deflection you can think of to take the focus away from watson's actions and his victims.

I'm certainly not a mind reader. But what I was taught is you can gauge one's intent by their actions. And the intentions seem pretty clear by most posters on this board from reading this thread.


So a contractually agreed upon process is a "sham process"? The NFL exercising their contractually guaranteed right to appeal the decision is a sham process? See, this is another example of what I am referring to. The NFL isn't breaking their contract. They aren't pulling some surprise move here. This isn't some sneaky back door loophole. The very definition of the word sham simply doesn't apply here though it continues to be used.

Can't really disagree with you there, but I think it's less pervasive than you might think. Not even trying to convince you or anything. Just a thought.

NFLPA is run by morons. We knew this already. Yes, it's a sham.

Considering the NFL is using a contractually agreed upon process, which they are, to arrive at that conclusion, no.


Lawyer speak is a common occurrence. Claims often exaggerated and sometimes even false get thrown around. This would then apply to both attorney's, would it not? Buzzbee still has an ongoing case against watson. Hardin also said they would fight every case in court.

You see, you can't have a different set of standards between these two attorney's. If you plan to excuse one attorney for things he said in defense of his client/clients, that has to work in both directions. As I pointed out, that has obviously not been the case here.

Sham means a thing that is not as it is reported to be. Bogus or false. To falsely present something as the truth.

The contractual agreement is clear. It has not been falsely reported. The NFL has the right to handle this appeal exactly the way they are. Nothing involved in this process meets the definition of a sham.

Both the NFLPA and the league have attorney's who go over these contracts with a fine tooth comb. If you wish to blame this process on the assertion that the NFLPA are morons, them being morons must be preventing them from hiring good attorney's. People can sit and make excuses about how or why they don't agree with the contract between the league and the players, but it is the binding contract agreed upon whether one like the parameters of that contract or not.

Your statement requires the assumption that he signs here again after not having wanted to be here to begin with.
I think, barring a year or two of franchising him, there is every reason to suspect that he'll leave in free agency to the highest bidder, especially if they have lots of sunshine and beaches.

Given that, this becomes a mega trade to only have the guy for a handful of years, and that doesn't look nearly as good.