What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

QB Deshaun Watson, CLE (3 Viewers)

RC94

Footballguy
I think that notion is totally false that settling a civil suit is an admission of guilt.

And yes Watson stated his innocence and said he's not settle and I hope you can see that saying anything else would have been idiotic as he would have given all the leverage to the other side.
I took his post as being sarcastic because of how vehemently Watson has said he's totally innocent and wants to prove himself. 

 

Soulfly3

Footballguy
I took his post as being sarcastic because of how vehemently Watson has said he's totally innocent and wants to prove himself. 


is there really a way to prove yourself, though? he's guilty no matter what, to some. not guilty to some. and in the middle with most. 

with no criminal trial, he can't even rest of "i'm not guilty", which as we know still doesn't mean innocent.

it was basically lose/lose for him... he'll never be able to be innocent to some, even if he was - which he obv isnt. 

 

Hot Sauce Guy

Footballguy
I think that notion is totally false that settling a civil suit is an admission of guilt.

And yes Watson stated his innocence and said he's not settle and I hope you can see that saying anything else would have been idiotic as he would have given all the leverage to the other side.
Still a hypocritical look that’s going to come back to bite him.

ESPECIALLY in light of the alleged shenanigans between Harden & the DA who reportedly failed to present all the evidence to the GJ. 

The combo looks especially damning. 

 

Stinkin Ref

IBL Representative
Reportedly 4 were not willing to settle back before the trade deadline during the 2021 season when Miami was interested. Reportedly it was over the requirement of signing an NDA and those 4 women refused. Seems likely these are the same 4 women and it’s not about money to them.
being able to "sell your story" to the highest bidder/bidders might be worth more than what Watson offered.....NDA is probably a huge factor here....

 

dhockster

Footballguy
haven't watched any of the vids/specials so can't comment, but did she not already spill the details publicly? or part of it? or none?
There is a difference between details being spilled and testimony in a court of law. Both from the plaintiffs and from Deshaun. Settling the lawsuits means the 4 woman don't get to tell their stories publicly and Deshaun doesn't have a chance to be questioned publicly. I think that means more to those 4 woman than any amount of money in a settlement.

 

32 Counter Pass

Footballguy
There is a difference between details being spilled and testimony in a court of law. Both from the plaintiffs and from Deshaun. Settling the lawsuits means the 4 woman don't get to tell their stories publicly and Deshaun doesn't have a chance to be questioned publicly. I think that means more to those 4 woman than any amount of money in a settlement.
You could be right, but as Pablo Escobar said, "Everyone has a price."

 

Soulfly3

Footballguy
I think that means more to those 4 woman than any amount of money in a settlement.


absolutely, IF they actually hold out... as mentioned earlier by someone here who appears to be a lawyer, he fully expects those 4 women to settle as well. 

but, if not, then ya... everything they stated happened will be out in the open. 

 

zeeshan2

Footballguy
Deshaun Watson surely wants to get all pending cases settled. There's a provision under Texas law that he could use to help persuade any lingering holdouts to accept his best offer.

https://twitter.com/ProFootballTalk/status/1539332711038476291?s=20&t=73O79DsjMCsOCG4YtFpb5A

From the article..

"It resides in Rule 167 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Watson can make an offer of settlement to each of the remaining four plaintiffs. In a nutshell, his lawyers would calculate an all-in number that covers the actual settlement of the claim, attorney fees, costs, and interest. If not accepted, and if the plaintiff ultimately recovers less than 80 percent of the amount of the offer through the trial process, the plaintiff would then become responsible for all litigation costs incurred by Watson from the time the offer was rejected."

Edit: Important to add this snippet. Essentially they cant lose any of their own money from before the trial, but they would risk losing some or all of the money awarded.

"Although a provision added to Rule 167 in 2011 makes it impossible for the plaintiff to experience a net loss, the plaintiff could still lose the full amount of the verdict, if it lands (plus fees, costs, and interest) at less than 80 percent of the amount of the offer."



 
Last edited by a moderator:

Maurile Tremblay

Administrator
Staff member
Could Solis use any of the other ladies who have settled to help her case (testify)  if she goes to trial? 


I would have to assume a NDA means their mouths have to be closed completely, about everything... How could it not?


A non-disclosure agreement doesn't prevent people from testifying in response to a subpoena.

What would prevent the other women from testifying in Solis's case is that, as far as I know, none of the other women witnessed Watson assault or otherwise interact with Solis. So what would they testify about? (Testimony that Watson did something bad to people not involved in the case won't be admissible because that's not what the case is about. If for some stupid reason Watson told one of the other women that he assaulted Solis, their testimony about that would be admissible.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ministry of Pain

Footballguy
Does 20 of the 24 women settling change the optics for anyone in here? 

What about Nationally? 

-Does it make it easier for the NFL to begin ruling and handing out a punishment? Is it easier for them to hand out a slightly lesser punishment than say a full season if 20 of these women have now settled?

 

Maurile Tremblay

Administrator
Staff member
Does 20 of the 24 women settling change the optics for anyone in here? 

What about Nationally? 

-Does it make it easier for the NFL to begin ruling and handing out a punishment? Is it easier for them to hand out a slightly lesser punishment than say a full season if 20 of these women have now settled?
If Watson can settle all the claims, it nullifies the possibility that, after his suspension is announced (if there is one), evidence will subsequently come out making him look super guilty and making the league's punishment appear too soft. I think nullifying that possibility makes it easier for the league to suspend him for, say, six games instead of a whole season.

As things stand now, not all of the claims have been settled, so the possibility of damning evidence coming out later still exists. Theoretically, that shouldn't affect the league's punishment since its punishment should be based on evidence it's already aware of, not on evidence it fears might come out later. But as a practical matter, who knows?

 

-OZ-

Footballguy
A non-disclosure agreement doesn't prevent people from testifying in response to a subpoena.

What would prevent the other women from testifying in Solis's case is that, as far as I know, none of the other women witnessed Watson assault or otherwise interact with Solis. So what would they testify about? (Testimony that Watson did something bad to people not involved in the case won't be admissible because that's not what the case is about. If for some stupid reason Watson told one of the other women that he assaulted Solis, their testimony about that would be admissible.)
If we’re going there, trying to keep it simple.  Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts.

(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.

(2) Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.

Texas is largely the same (I have no idea if this has been interpreted differently) 

Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.
(2) Permitted Uses; Notice in Criminal Case. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. On timely request by a defendant in a criminal case, the prosecutor must provide reasonable notice before trial that the prosecution intends to introduce such evidence—other than that arising in the same transaction—in its case-in-chief

 
Last edited by a moderator:

scothawk

Footballguy
This has been brought up multiple times. It is a very common practice by every team in the league to structure players contracts in this fashion. Most likely has nothing to do with his guilt or innocence. 
Correct me if i am wrong, but the scale of his pay cut is beyond what we saw before, right?

 

[icon]

Insoxicated
Really hope at least one woman holds out so we can see this go to trial and see how much fire is behind all this smoke. 
 

IF the evidence is sound IMO NFL punishment needs to reflect the high likelyhood that the other 20+ cases were similar, and the suspension should be years/life. The NFL is no place for serial sex offenders... particularly on this scale.

IF a case goes to trial and IF the evidence is compelling  

 
Last edited by a moderator:

daveR

Footballguy
Does 20 of the 24 women settling change the optics for anyone in here? 

What about Nationally? 

-Does it make it easier for the NFL to begin ruling and handing out a punishment? Is it easier for them to hand out a slightly lesser punishment than say a full season if 20 of these women have now settled?
For me, this was expected.  Doesn't change much of anything.  Neither am I shocked that a couple settlements are being held back, for now.  It's to their benefit to keep the case in the news.  As far as the NFL's actions go, I think it still needs to go before the arbitrator and I'm not sure if this new system is supposed to use past suspensions as a guideline or not.  Whether or not this procedure will be made public could well influence their actions.  The NFL must appear to support women, while the NFLPA must appear to support Watson, which (sadly) might mean that sensible options go unrepresented.

 

pantherclub

Footballguy
is there really a way to prove yourself, though? he's guilty no matter what, to some. not guilty to some. and in the middle with most. 

with no criminal trial, he can't even rest of "i'm not guilty", which as we know still doesn't mean innocent.

it was basically lose/lose for him... he'll never be able to be innocent to some, even if he was - which he obv isnt. 
wait, wut?

 

Soulfly3

Footballguy
wait, wut?


once a story like this gets out, there is no good outcome. the accused will always lose (even if truly innocent, which i dont believe he is). but even if he was 100% innocent, proven clear, the social medias never forget... he's a rapist/slimeball forever. 

so, watson saying "i want to prove my innocence" was nice and all... but it was never going to happen. 1) because he's almost 100% not, and 2) because even if he was, he isn't in the realm of today's social media.

 

Ilov80s

Footballguy
Really hope at least one woman holds out so we can see this go to trial and see how much fire is behind all this smoke. 
 

IF the evidence is sound IMO NFL punishment needs to reflect the high likelyhood that the other 20+ cases were similar, and the suspension should be years/life. The NFL is no place for serial sex offenders... particularly on this scale.

IF a case goes to trial and IF the evidence is compelling  
If I was a real cut throat AFC North owner, I would go to those 4 women and offer them more money than Watson can offer to move forward with the trial. 

 

Stinkin Ref

IBL Representative
A non-disclosure agreement doesn't prevent people from testifying in response to a subpoena.

What would prevent the other women from testifying in Solis's case is that, as far as I know, none of the other women witnessed Watson assault or otherwise interact with Solis. So what would they testify about? (Testimony that Watson did something bad to people not involved in the case won't be admissible because that's not what the case is about. If for some stupid reason Watson told one of the other women that he assaulted Solis, their testimony about that would be admissible.)
let's say Watson was married twice and in trouble and going to court for a DV case against his current wife.....could they not call his first wife in as a witness to possible abusive behavior in the first marriage so as to show a pattern of behavior.....?....even if no DV reports were ever filed in the first marriage...i.e.: she was too scared to file a formal complaint or whatever.....

feels like that kind of testimony happens all the time...?....the first wife may not have witnessed anything or heard of anything with the second wife, but she has a "history" with DW....

feels like the 20 massage therapists who have settled, would be able to testify along those lines.....just like ones that had "positive" experiences with him could be called in as "character witnesses"...

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Soulfly3

Footballguy
well... IF the league wanted to go light on Deshaun (4, 6, 8 or wait until post civil ends), now would be the time...

Snyder is about to steal ALL the league's limelight.... Congress just took a huge steaming doodoo on the Shield and Goodell, right in his face. 

 

GregR

Footballguy
(2) Permitted Uses; Notice in Criminal Case. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. On timely request by a defendant in a criminal case, the prosecutor must provide reasonable notice before trial that the prosecution intends to introduce such evidence—other than that arising in the same transaction—in its case-in-chief
So if a woman who didn't settle had in her case how Deshaun wanted to use his own small towel, and the things he did leading up to his junk contacting her...  could they bring in one or more women whose cases were settled to testify he did the same thing?  Towards preparation (trying to create a situation to increase naked proximity to her) and events that led to the contact having repeated so evidence against it being an accident?

 

bro1ncos

IBL Representative
well... IF the league wanted to go light on Deshaun (4, 6, 8 or wait until post civil ends), now would be the time...

Snyder is about to steal ALL the league's limelight.... Congress just took a huge steaming doodoo on the Shield and Goodell, right in his face. 
100% truth here. Congress saying that NFL helped Snyder with a sham investigation on work place culture isn't going to end well for a lot of people.

NFL issues 1yr, Watson appeals, reduced to 8. Almost completely out of the news by the time Snyder is subpoenaed to Congress next week. Then training camps starting.

 

Anarchy99

Footballguy
100% truth here. Congress saying that NFL helped Snyder with a sham investigation on work place culture isn't going to end well for a lot of people.

NFL issues 1yr, Watson appeals, reduced to 8. Almost completely out of the news by the time Snyder is subpoenaed to Congress next week. Then training camps starting.
Except I expect the league to ask for two years and settle on one. At this point, I don't see the league accepting any less than a year.

 

CletiusMaximus

Footballguy
Stinkin Ref said:
Maurile Tremblay said:
A non-disclosure agreement doesn't prevent people from testifying in response to a subpoena.

What would prevent the other women from testifying in Solis's case is that, as far as I know, none of the other women witnessed Watson assault or otherwise interact with Solis. So what would they testify about? (Testimony that Watson did something bad to people not involved in the case won't be admissible because that's not what the case is about. If for some stupid reason Watson told one of the other women that he assaulted Solis, their testimony about that would be admissible.)
Expand  
let's say Watson was married twice and in trouble and going to court for a DV case against his current wife.....could they not call his first wife in as a witness to possible abusive behavior in the first marriage so as to show a pattern of behavior.....?....even if no DV reports were ever filed in the first marriage...i.e.: she was too scared to file a formal complaint or whatever.....

feels like that kind of testimony happens all the time...?....the first wife may not have witnessed anything or heard of anything with the second wife, but she has a "history" with DW....

feels like the 20 massage therapists who have settled, would be able to testify along those lines.....just like ones that had "positive" experiences with him could be called in as "character witnesses"...


There are exceptions to every rule, but generally speaking the answer is no - evidence of "prior acts" or "pattern of behavior" is generally not admissible to prove conduct in the specific case at trial. The domestic violence example raises some compelling issues and I think there are situations where prior acts are admitted under particular circumstances, but that goes against the general rule. The idea is balancing how "probative" or valuable the prior acts evidence is to show what happened in the specific case before the jury, as balanced against the prejudicial effect of that evidence. Its easy to see how a jury would think - since he did it before with a different person in a different circumstances, he probably did the same thing in this case we're deciding now. Generally speaking, that's not considered a legitimate way to prove what happened so that evidence is deemed more prejudicial than its worth, and is excluded.

 

ffmail4me

Footballguy
can everyone agree it would be better to slap Watson on the wrist with a 2-4 game ban and force Snyder out? I mean, that seems like everyone would win in that scenario. FF fans, Browns fan, Washington fans, EVERYONE. 

 

Anarchy99

Footballguy
can everyone agree it would be better to slap Watson on the wrist with a 2-4 game ban and force Snyder out? I mean, that seems like everyone would win in that scenario. FF fans, Browns fan, Washington fans, EVERYONE. 
Why would they only give out a mild penalty to DW? What does Watson have to do with Snyder? They can give Watson a year and still force Snyder out. 

 

Stinkin Ref

IBL Representative
There are exceptions to every rule, but generally speaking the answer is no - evidence of "prior acts" or "pattern of behavior" is generally not admissible to prove conduct in the specific case at trial. The domestic violence example raises some compelling issues and I think there are situations where prior acts are admitted under particular circumstances, but that goes against the general rule. The idea is balancing how "probative" or valuable the prior acts evidence is to show what happened in the specific case before the jury, as balanced against the prejudicial effect of that evidence. Its easy to see how a jury would think - since he did it before with a different person in a different circumstances, he probably did the same thing in this case we're deciding now. Generally speaking, that's not considered a legitimate way to prove what happened so that evidence is deemed more prejudicial than its worth, and is excluded.
so the same could be said for the defense trying to use "positive" experiences with Watson where there were no issues....that would not be allowed either.....correct...?

 

Stinkin Ref

IBL Representative
can everyone agree it would be better to slap Watson on the wrist with a 2-4 game ban and force Snyder out? I mean, that seems like everyone would win in that scenario. FF fans, Browns fan, Washington fans, EVERYONE. 
there's 24.....well at least 4 people who would probably disagree that that would not be a "win" for everybody.....and most any fan of any NFL team outside of CLE would probably love to see him sit for as long as possible......especially in PIT/BAL/CIN....

I say that but then I start thinking well what if this was just some average Joe with an average job....would there be this much "venom" so to speak....and people calling for average Joe to lose his average job.....but average Joe probably doesn't have the means to put himself in this situation....and if he did the first time, he would probably be ratted out to authorities immediately.....not being able to hide behind his wealth and popularity....

 

-OZ-

Footballguy
zeeshan2 said:
Regarding Deshaun Watson, a league official told me “settling doesn't give someone a pass" and indicated a lengthy suspension remains in order.

https://twitter.com/RobMaaddi/status/1539293878259437574?s=20&t=GFa5Zsvs91Pvu_YRpjkOKA
Of course it doesn’t. Why would it? 
The NFL disciplines for putting the league in a bad light, not as restitution for harm caused to the victim. 

Stinkin Ref said:
let's say Watson was married twice and in trouble and going to court for a DV case against his current wife.....could they not call his first wife in as a witness to possible abusive behavior in the first marriage so as to show a pattern of behavior.....?....even if no DV reports were ever filed in the first marriage...i.e.: she was too scared to file a formal complaint or whatever.....

feels like that kind of testimony happens all the time...?....the first wife may not have witnessed anything or heard of anything with the second wife, but she has a "history" with DW....

feels like the 20 massage therapists who have settled, would be able to testify along those lines.....just like ones that had "positive" experiences with him could be called in as "character witnesses"...
If Watson’s attorney puts on positive character evidence like that, the door is wide open to rebut it. But that will be after his side is heard. 

GregR said:
So if a woman who didn't settle had in her case how Deshaun wanted to use his own small towel, and the things he did leading up to his junk contacting her...  could they bring in one or more women whose cases were settled to testify he did the same thing?  Towards preparation (trying to create a situation to increase naked proximity to her) and events that led to the contact having repeated so evidence against it being an accident?
His attorney will argue and use whatever tactics he wants to try to keep it out. The prosecutor or complaints will do the opposite. Judge decides. I’d think the conduct shows preparation, intent, and lack of mistake. But the judge could reasonably decide otherwise and that the prejudice outweighs its value. 

 

-OZ-

Footballguy
so the same could be said for the defense trying to use "positive" experiences with Watson where there were no issues....that would not be allowed either.....correct...?
Nope. Defense is welcome to open that door. He’d be an idiot to do so. IMO of course. 

 

menobrown

Footballguy
can everyone agree it would be better to slap Watson on the wrist with a 2-4 game ban and force Snyder out?
I don't care about Snyder but yes to Watson and frankly I have and will never understand football fans who actually root for longer suspensions. I mean when I kick back in on Halloween night to watch the Browns vs Bengals I'll enjoy watching that game a whole more if it's Watson playing QB then Jacoby Brisset. I don't care about anything else. Fine the players, let teams cut them if they think what they did is so egregious, find another way to mete out punishment. I would love to see the NFL get as far away from the player suspensions as possible. Does not make the game better.

 

-OZ-

Footballguy
I don't care about Snyder but yes to Watson and frankly I have and will never understand football fans who actually root for longer suspensions. I mean when I kick back in on Halloween night to watch the Browns vs Bengals I'll enjoy watching that game a whole more if it's Watson playing QB then Jacoby Brisset. I don't care about anything else. Fine the players, let teams cut them if they think what they did is so egregious, find another way to mete out punishment. I would love to see the NFL get as far away from the player suspensions as possible. Does not make the game better.


Truth.  No idea how anyone could ever disagree with this
I guess it just depends on your view. I think some meaningful penalties make sense. Maybe that’s just a large fine. But missing games means more to most players. 

 

ghostguy123

Footballguy
So, leave it up to the teams to suspend their own players?
I think if the players are able to play, they should play.  If a team wants to suspend their own player, go for it.

If a guy isn't in jail or arrested and pending trial, or on trial, play.

The only suspensions I can get behind would be for something related to cheating or anything else compromising the game itself like insider gambling or whatever 

Otherwise, we have a legal system for this stuff.  This isn't a regular job.  These guys blast each other's bodies apart all day.  It's entertainments.  Suspensions aren't entertaining.  

If someone did something so horrible, maybe they should be in jail.  If not, whelp, see ya on the field.  

 

ghostguy123

Footballguy
The fact that we even discuss suspensions is silly.  Been said many times before, but the NFL screwed up when they started with all these suspensions for the personal conduct policy garbage.

If you want to be mad at someone for certain guys still being able to play, be mad at our cruddy justice system that allows them to get away with it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

TheWinz

Footballguy
If someone did something so horrible, maybe they should be in jail.  If not, whelp, see ya on the field.  
I remember when Vick came back to the NFL.  Sure, he served his time in prison, but I was torn.  As an FF'er, I wanted to see him play; as a dog lover, I wanted to see a pack of pitbulls run onto the field and maul him.

 

Anarchy99

Footballguy
Here’s the thing. Over on the FootballGals message board, there are women demanding Watson be kicked out of the league and should face a two year suspension AT A MINIMUM.
 

Not everyone is pulling for a slap on the wrist, 2 game suspension. The way the world is now, the league has to make an example of Watson and set a new standard and precedent to show the league takes these things seriously. 

 

-OZ-

Footballguy
I think if the players are able to play, they should play.  If a team wants to suspend their own player, go for it.

If a guy isn't in jail or arrested and pending trial, or on trial, play.

The only suspensions I can get behind would be for something related to cheating or anything else compromising the game itself like insider gambling or whatever 

Otherwise, we have a legal system for this stuff.  This isn't a regular job.  These guys blast each other's bodies apart all day.  It's entertainments.  Suspensions aren't entertaining.  

If someone did something so horrible, maybe they should be in jail.  If not, whelp, see ya on the field.  
Many will agree with you. 
many others won’t pay if they think their money is going to support conduct they find distasteful or worse. The league isn’t suspending players because it’s “the right thing to do”, they do it to protect their product. Much like other jobs can fire or suspend employees for certain conduct. 

 

Hot Sauce Guy

Footballguy
bro1ncos said:
100% truth here. Congress saying that NFL helped Snyder with a sham investigation on work place culture isn't going to end well for a lot of people.

NFL issues 1yr, Watson appeals, reduced to 8. Almost completely out of the news by the time Snyder is subpoenaed to Congress next week. Then training camps starting.
There’s no way they suspend for a year (18 games) and reduce to 8. That’s 100% wishful thinking. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top