Jump to content

Deshaun Watson suspended 6 games


Rhg1084
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Doggin94it said:

Anyway, if you want my longer breakdown of the ruling, it's here 

 

I had forgotten that was you. I love your tweets. Though the evidence would suggest otherwise, I always learn something from your opinions. 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, T0mShane said:

True, but we already knew this. Listening to podcasts and reading articles, the current opinion is that Roger should step in and ban Watson for a season. These same people have screamed for years that Roger’s punishments have been capricious and arbitrary, and that the league needed an impartial disciplinary entity. Now that they have one, and the process has played out, they should just completely disregard that process? 

I don't think Rodgers should do that.  They have a contract with the players and he's obligated to use the process regarding the player.   My problem with the Commissioner is he's a hypocrite.  He brings an action against a player but the place he has real control is with NFL Management.  The fact that the NFL was willing to suspend him and did an investigation but wasn't willing to control the ownership of the teams in having a bidding war for his services shows how tone deaf the owners and the commissionar really are about abuse.

What Watson did, sexually exploiting these women is rather ordinary.  It happens all the time.  Most women get over sexual advances and move on.  Some of them don't but it's pervasive and rather ordinary despite the shock by most on this board.

The predatory aspect of his actions and the enabling by the NFL itself makes him a danger to society.  He's likely to go further the more he feels it's okay.   We have an example of how wrong this could go.  The Penn State child sex abuse scandal.  It didn't just bring down the perp.  It brought down the entire organization which looked the other way.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, T0mShane said:

I had forgotten that was you. I love your tweets. Though the evidence would suggest otherwise, I always learn something from your opinions. 

Ha, thanks. Feel free to DM me who you are on Twitter so I can follow back; I need more Mike White content in my feed

  • Sympathy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Biggs said:

I don't think Rodgers should do that.  They have a contract with the players and he's obligated to use the process regarding the player.   My problem with the Commissioner is he's a hypocrite.  He brings an action against a player but the place he has real control is with NFL Management.  The fact that the NFL was willing to suspend him and did an investigation but wasn't willing to control the ownership of the teams in having a bidding war for his services shows how tone deaf the owners and the commissionar really are about abuse.

What Watson did, sexually exploiting these women is rather ordinary.  It happens all the time.  Most women get over sexual advances and move on.  Some of them don't but it's pervasive and rather ordinary despite the shock by most on this board.

The predatory aspect of his actions and the enabling by the NFL itself makes him a danger to society.  He's likely to go further the more he feels it's okay.   We have an example of how wrong this could go.  The Penn State child sex abuse scandal.  It didn't just bring down the perp.  It brought down the entire organization which looked the other way.  

Not only is that not how anything works, but if the league prevented teams from signing particular players they'd get sued into oblivion.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Paradis said:

All this, but then some of them willfully rebooked subsequent jobs with him as I undestand. 

I don't like it, the whole thing is nasty, but there's media sensationalizing happening and. I say that through a lens where part of my job is to conduct investigations that tread water in this space. There's a problem with Watson taking advantage of his status to even put people in this awful spot (or the sense thereof)... but it's just not as straight forward as some are suggesting... otherwise, he'd be in jail right now.

This process, and the determination have to be something which can be objectively replicated in other instances  moving forward. It's tough to leverage in optics to influence precedence and case law.  

The whole things is a mess. 

Not any of the 4 (5, including the one who they only put in through documents) they focused on at the hearing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Doggin94it said:

Not only is that not how anything works, but if the league prevented teams from signing particular players they'd get sued into oblivion.

The particular player was accused off sexual assault and there was a predatory factor to it.  He was also under contract.  Watson was able to break his contract because he was a sexual predator and the Texans wanted out.  

The way it works now is the NFL isn't punishing anyone for behavior detrimental to the league.  The NFL is merely an investigative body.  Punishment is decided by a neutral mediator. 

Why can't the NFL after doing it's investigation go after the Texans for their non-disclosure forms they gave Watson and the Contract the Browns gave to Watson with the intent to skirt the detrimental clause of the NFL contract?  

This would not prevent teams from signing anyone.  It would prevent teams from colluding to skirt the NFL contract to the detriment of the leagues reputation. 

Players under investigation who are also under contract aren't being denied anything.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Doggin94it said:

Anyway, if you want my longer breakdown of the ruling, it's here 

 

Can’t agree more with the takes here. The section where she breaks down how the NFL defines violence and that this can’t possibly fit the mold, and that comparable cases thus justify 6 games…WHAT COMPARABLE CASES.

Again, this is stuff you expect from local judges and prosecutors in sexual assault cases. Hence why grand jury wasn’t surprising. Feds and federal judges tend to serve as a (relatively) decent check on all of this line of reasoning, not a reinforcement of it. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The six-game duration of the suspension was not random

Remember, Robinson first decided she was not starting from a six-game baseline but from one of three games or fewer, based on precedent set by other nonviolent sexual assault cases. As "aggravating factors" (that is, reasons to increase the suspension), she cites Watson's "lack of expressed remorse and his tardy notice to the NFL of the first-filed lawsuit." As "mitigating factors" (that is, reasons to go easier on him), she cites "he is a first-time offender and had an excellent reputation in his community prior to these events. He cooperated and has paid restitution."

Very interestingly, she also notes the league could have placed Watson on the commissioner's exempt list last year and chose not to, which she appears to think means the league didn't consider his behavior worthy of such punishment until it saw the public reaction to it. She makes that clear in her conclusion when she writes, "The NFL may be a 'forward-facing' organization, but it is not necessarily a forward-looking one. Just as the NFL responded to violent conduct after a public outcry, so it seems the NFL is responding to yet another public outcry about Mr. Watson's conduct."

‐---------------‐---------------‐---------------‐---------
 

Judge Sue Robinson made the right decision, imho, and the league should stand by her decision. If they don’t the whole NFL disciplinary process is a joke going forward. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

Because I am a mostly oblivious Gen X white dude from the suburbs, I presumed that if Watson had done anything egregious, the law enforcement apparatus in Texas would parse that out and kneecap him to a pretty turgid extent. Clearly, he’s guiltier than I believed at the outset, and after the whole grand jury imbroglio. That said, I’m not so familiar with the psychology behind predatory behavior that I’d make a correlation between Watson and Jerry Sandusky. Seems extreme(?) I feel like relying on Roger Goodell to backfill for gross failures/negligence/incompetence/ambivalence thereof of the justice system is also not good. I think the league and the PA should follow Robinson’s recommendation and agree to a more coherent schedule of punishment for various crimes so they don’t get hung up deciding on the extent of penalties based on how mad people get online. 

I robbed my first bank afterl I practiced at the candy Island of woolworth for years. 

I come from an era where women in the work place were pretty much open game for the kind of assault Watson was accused of.  There is definetely a predatory nature to the assaults which to me seems really disturbing and likely to increase in both frequency and action.   I thnk he could very well be a danger to society and probably will end up in jail at some point. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, nycdan said:

So....I had a hunch...and of course it proved right.

Why 6 games?  Why not 10...or 12?  Guess who probably had lunch with the judge last week? LOL.

image.png

By coincidence of course it is setup perfectly for the nfl. 
leave it at 6 games and he returns Monday night prime time.

extend it to 10 and show the world that they are outraged, Tom Brady and the bucs at home which you know gets flexed to Sunday night.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, T0mShane said:


I presumed that if Watson had done anything egregious, the law enforcement apparatus in Texas would parse that out and kneecap him to a pretty turgid extent. 

I know right? It’s wild that the staunch defender of women and minorities that is Texas law didn’t get the job done here.  

  • Upvote 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the league does appeal, be prepared for Watson vs. the Jets next month.

As we all know, the appeal will go to Goodell, who will hand down a stiffer punishment.  At that point, Watson's lawyers will take the case to Federal Court and seek an injunction on the suspension while the Federal Court sorts everything out.

While the Federal Court could very well uphold the larger suspension handed down by Goodell through the appeal process, if the injunction is granted, the suspension is on hold...meaning Watson can play and practice during that time period which could drag out for quite some time.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/1/2022 at 8:45 AM, PorP said:

Nfl does not do suspensions anymore.  The players association hires a 3rd party to do that. The players association then issues the suspension.

NFL and the accused player both have the right to appeal. 

 

 

Is that the process the same process that resulted in Ridley being suspended for an entire season for a few bets? Or was that a non-discretionary type of deal because it was betting? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

Because I am a mostly oblivious Gen X white dude from the suburbs, I presumed that if Watson had done anything egregious, the law enforcement apparatus in Texas would parse that out and kneecap him to a pretty turgid extent. Clearly, he’s guiltier than I believed at the outset, and after the whole grand jury imbroglio. That said, I’m not so familiar with the psychology behind predatory behavior that I’d make a correlation between Watson and Jerry Sandusky. Seems extreme(?) I feel like relying on Roger Goodell to backfill for gross failures/negligence/incompetence/ambivalence thereof of the justice system is also not good. I think the league and the PA should follow Robinson’s recommendation and agree to a more coherent schedule of punishment for various crimes so they don’t get hung up deciding on the extent of penalties based on how mad people get online. 

Watson was saved by the lack of video evidence. It here was any video at all, he'd have been Ray Riced right out of the league. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sonny Werblin said:

Is that the process the same process that resulted in Ridley being suspended for an entire season for a few bets? Or was that a non-discretionary type of deal because it was betting? 

I do not know to be honest.  NFL Network just said that deshuan is the first time nfl /nflpa are walking through this new process.

I also don't recall a 3rd party involved with ridley. 

So unsure if it was what you said or maybe timing of the new process being put in place? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Impartial' does not mean smart.

'precedent' does not mean good precedent.

This is a league mandated conduct ruling not a court case, it should not have been treated like a court case.

And ex judges are just ex lawyers.  (I expect to be blasted by some of our lawyers on this site.)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Sonny Werblin said:

Watson was saved by the lack of video evidence. It here was any video at all, he'd have been Ray Riced right out of the league. 

I honestly doubt it.  If Watson was a 28 year old RB and not a 26 year old QB - he would be Ray Riced out of the league too.

This is simply shameless by the NFL, ESPN, The Cleveland Browns and seemingly a large portion of the overall fan base.

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, playtowinthegame said:

The six-game duration of the suspension was not random

Remember, Robinson first decided she was not starting from a six-game baseline but from one of three games or fewer, based on precedent set by other nonviolent sexual assault cases. As "aggravating factors" (that is, reasons to increase the suspension), she cites Watson's "lack of expressed remorse and his tardy notice to the NFL of the first-filed lawsuit." As "mitigating factors" (that is, reasons to go easier on him), she cites "he is a first-time offender and had an excellent reputation in his community prior to these events. He cooperated and has paid restitution."

Very interestingly, she also notes the league could have placed Watson on the commissioner's exempt list last year and chose not to, which she appears to think means the league didn't consider his behavior worthy of such punishment until it saw the public reaction to it. She makes that clear in her conclusion when she writes, "The NFL may be a 'forward-facing' organization, but it is not necessarily a forward-looking one. Just as the NFL responded to violent conduct after a public outcry, so it seems the NFL is responding to yet another public outcry about Mr. Watson's conduct."

‐---------------‐---------------‐---------------‐---------
 

Judge Sue Robinson made the right decision, imho, and the league should stand by her decision. If they don’t the whole NFL disciplinary process is a joke going forward. 

"The past standard was 3 games for molesting one woman. I find he molested 4. 6 games"

NFL will be appealing this, and the idea that Watson somehow didn't have fair notice that touching women with his penis when he knew they didn't want it might subject him to discipline is a joke.

  • Upvote 2
  • Sympathy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, IndianaJet said:

If the league does appeal, be prepared for Watson vs. the Jets next month.

As we all know, the appeal will go to Goodell, who will hand down a stiffer punishment.  At that point, Watson's lawyers will take the case to Federal Court and seek an injunction on the suspension while the Federal Court sorts everything out.

While the Federal Court could very well uphold the larger suspension handed down by Goodell through the appeal process, if the injunction is granted, the suspension is on hold...meaning Watson can play and practice during that time period which could drag out for quite some time.

 

 

No. Any injunction would only go into effect after the 6 games Watson was given (he'd be challenging the harsher sentence, not the one Robinson handed down)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, RutgersJetFan said:

I know right? It’s wild that the staunch defender of women and minorities that is Texas law didn’t get the job done here.  

Naive? Sure. But I figured that those staunch Texas defenders of both women and minorities would at least split the difference between the two, especially in service of influential wealthy members of the local establishment. 
 

I’ve done some reflecting on my opinion on this and I think what happened is that I conflated what I *thought* would happen with what I *wanted to* happen, and I ended up defending a scumbag position because of my native interest in  being right online. Gross, but it’s been a learning experience.

  • Post of the Week 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the following happened over the coming days...

1) Roger turned this into a full-season suspension

2) Watson doesn't appeal

and

3) That the NFL and Watson knew this was exactly how this would play out.  think about it...

  • Watson already protected himself economically for a full-year suspension (6 games vs. full year has a relatively small impact on his guaranteed income)
  • No matter what the suspension there would be people that would be pissed.  This allows the NFL to make a statement that we didn't let him off easy.  He got six weeks, we made it a year - tough on sexual predators.
  • This would allow Watson to take the season - and not object - showing some level of contrition   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, playtowinthegame said:

Why didn't the NFL place Watson on the Commissioner's Exempt list last year? 

Because they weren't going to reward him for being accused of molesting women?

He was already not playing based on his desire to hold out and the Texans unwillingness to play him. The only thing putting him on the exempt list would do is cut down his suspension time after the investigation, without actually costing him any money or games he would otherwise have been playing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Doggin94it said:

He was already not playing based on his desire to hold out and the Texans unwillingness to play him. The only thing putting him on the exempt list would do is cut down his suspension time after the investigation, without actually costing him any money or games he would otherwise have been playing.

More like that is what you want to believe because Watson is a scumbag. 

Another question...

Why did the league only present 4 cases as opposed to all 24? 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Trotter said:

The Bengal argument is valid however, the odds are the Browns were and are not going to that team this year. 

The main difference in our opinion is the image of the NFL.

There is no squeaky clean image. That has been got for many years. The NFL cares about one thing - making money. If they think there is an opportunity to make money by exploiting the return of Watson this year - you can bet they are all in. The owners for the most part are billionaires who care about making money. Most if not all of them could care less about their players and fans - except the Mara's and their generous giveaway of medium soda's last year.  

I agree with the NFL only caring about making money. Where we differ is that I think the NFL would have perfered he was out this year. You think the NFL would prefer he be playing. To each their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, playtowinthegame said:

More like that is what you want to believe because Watson is a scumbag. 

Another question...

Why did the league only present 4 cases as opposed to all 24? 

Because it was only a 3 day hearing. Spin all the conspiracy theories you want. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, extmenace said:

I agree with the NFL only caring about making money. Where we differ is that I think the NFL would have perfered he was out this year. You think the NFL would prefer he be playing. To each their own.

It’s all good.

we had a civil conversation over a disagreement. No hatred, name calling or worse.

your point regarding the nfl not wanting him to play might be spot on.

there is just a part of me that does not trust them especially for financial gain.

what we can agree on is it is a good day when bad things happen to the fish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doggin94it said:

Because it was only a 3 day hearing. Spin all the conspiracy theories you want. 

 

So you think all 24 cases were equal in strength? More like they chose the best ones. I guess there wasn't enough time for let's say at least a ⅓ of the cases. 🤨

  • Post of the Week 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NFL and NFLPA have a deal that is tough to manage.  

But someone needs to change the rules here to not allow a contract to be structured to avoid a suspension.  The suspension is supposed to be the teeth here-Watson should be losing $10mm+ for not being allowed to play in 6 games.  He is not.  The NFL should find a way to fine the Browns for that and donate it to Abused Women's Groups.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...