QB Deshaun Watson, CLE (2 Viewers)

[habsfan]

pretty sure this is a common theme

which is why the outrage over the horrible things that will happen if the punishment is to too light is pretty amusing.

you probably can count the viewers on 1 hand that will not watch their team, as reaction to Watson not getting any suspension. 

I guess the "horrible thing" is that people who think professional athletes at marquee positions should be "high character" individuals will have to work through their cognitive dissonance about that.

When teams decide which players' images are being put on banners, posters and game tickets, the decision isn't solely based on "good at sports". I also feel like the decision to buy someone's jersey isn't solely based on that either so it will be interesting to see what the impact of this will be on Watson's marketability (if any).

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I guess the "horrible thing" is that people who think professional athletes at marquee positions should be "high character" individuals will have to work through their cognitive dissonance about that.

When teams decide which players' images are being put on banners, posters and game tickets, the decision isn't solely based on "good at sports". I also feel like the decision to buy someone's jersey isn't solely based on that either so it will be interesting to see what the impact of this will be on Watson's marketability (if any).

All good points.

I’ll add that the damage caused by what could be seen a leniency because good at spots has nothing to do with Browns fans tuning out, or NFL fans in general, or even fantasy football dorks like us. 

It has everything to do with the yet-to-become NFL fans deciding that a league willing to look the other way on such behavior won’t be for them. And like any business, new customers are their lifeblood. Without new fans, there is no future. The NFL may well be the best pro sports outfit in terms of recognizing this.

So @Obie Wan might be correct in saying “you probably can count the viewers on 1 hand that will not watch their team, as reaction to Watson not getting any suspension.” - but it’s irrelevant to the health of the sport.

What is relevant is parents deciding they don’t want little Timmy watching or playing football because it’s a league that protects star players who’ve been accused of heinous acts.

(And yes, I’m aware he wasn’t convicted & that the GJ didn’t indict based on what they were shown. That, too, is irrelevant to this high level discussion) 

 

[TheDirtyWord]

All good points.

I’ll add that the damage caused by what could be seen a leniency because good at spots has nothing to do with Browns fans tuning out, or NFL fans in general, or even fantasy football dorks like us. 

It has everything to do with the yet-to-become NFL fans deciding that a league willing to look the other way on such behavior won’t be for them. And like any business, new customers are their lifeblood. Without new fans, there is no future. The NFL may well be the best pro sports outfit in terms of recognizing this.

So @Obie Wan might be correct in saying “you probably can count the viewers on 1 hand that will not watch their team, as reaction to Watson not getting any suspension.” - but it’s irrelevant to the health of the sport.

What is relevant is parents deciding they don’t want little Timmy watching or playing football because it’s a league that protects star players who’ve been accused of heinous acts.

(And yes, I’m aware he wasn’t convicted & that the GJ didn’t indict based on what they were shown. That, too, is irrelevant to this high level discussion) 

Who is deciding that the punishment is lenient?  The masses?  A portion of the masses?  What might constitute too harsh of a punishment?

I guess what follows is what I don't understand.  Prior to the final 2 suits coming to light in the last 30-60 days, there were 22.  Of those 22, the NFL decided to investigate 12 in detail over what I think was close to a year.  Of those 12, Tony Buzbee indicated that he only represented 10 of these women.  And of the 12, the NFL decided to present evidence to the arbiter of only 5.

So we've seen 1) the primary lawyer bringing these cases to light indicating that by his own admission there were a portion that didn't pass muster and 2) the NFL declining to include close to 60% of the incidents they investigated in their presentation to the former Federal judge arbiter.

You state that the lack of conviction and no GJ indictment is irrelevant.  But if the Vrentas piece is right, and Watson engaged 66 massage therapists over the timeframe in question.  And 5 made it to Robinson, why are we taking the word of less than 10% of the (largely nameless) massage therapists that engaged with Watson as gospel, but stating that the findings of a justice system that has served as the backbone of this country for close to 2.5 centuries is irrelevant?  Not to mention that 1) if the NFL's case included no evidence that Watson engaged in violence, made threats, applied coercion, or used force...that would run counter to the version of events we as the general public have been made privy to and 2) Watson's version of events should count for something...particularly since 90% of these engagements didn't result in a suit or an NFL investigation when push came to shove.

The ONLY reason people are clamoring for a year suspension is because of the supposed 'PR hit' the NFL would incur by not coming down hard on Watson.  Goodell handed out a suspension less than 8 years ago to Josh Brent of 10 games for killing someone while he was driving intoxicated ffs.  But you keep on waiving this 'consent' flag (in a sexual contact, not sexual assault/rape situation) like it's a worse offense . Never mind that in a click based media world, the information we'll be granted access to in a situation like this will be of the most sensationalized variety.  We certainly haven't seen the outlets like ESPN.com providing updates like Florio has now that we're seeing a diminishing preponderance of the salacious narrative and accusers relevant to Watson's NFL fate.

But I guess the hypothetical fate of make believe 'little Timmy' is more important or in your words 'relevant' than the actual fate of a real black QB.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Who is deciding that the punishment is lenient?  The masses?  A portion of the masses?  What might constitute too harsh of a punishment?

I guess what follows is what I don't understand.  Prior to the final 2 suits coming to light in the last 30-60 days, there were 22.  Of those 22, the NFL decided to investigate 12 in detail over what I think was close to a year.  Of those 12, Tony Buzbee indicated that he only represented 10 of these women.  And of the 12, the NFL decided to present evidence to the arbiter of only 5.

So we've seen 1) the primary lawyer bringing these cases to light indicating that by his own admission there were a portion that didn't pass muster and 2) the NFL declining to include close to 60% of the incidents they investigated in their presentation to the former Federal judge arbiter.

You state that the lack of conviction and no GJ indictment is irrelevant.  But if the Vrentas piece is right, and Watson engaged 66 massage therapists over the timeframe in question.  And 5 made it to Robinson, why are we taking the word of less than 10% of the (largely nameless) massage therapists that engaged with Watson as gospel, but stating that the findings of a justice system that has served as the backbone of this country for close to 2.5 centuries is irrelevant?  Not to mention that 1) if the NFL's case included no evidence that Watson engaged in violence, made threats, applied coercion, or used force...that would run counter to the version of events we as the general public have been made privy to and 2) Watson's version of events should count for something...particularly since 90% of these engagements didn't result in a suit or an NFL investigation when push came to shove.

The ONLY reason people are clamoring for a year suspension is because of the supposed 'PR hit' the NFL would incur by not coming down hard on Watson.  Goodell handed out a suspension less than 8 years ago to Josh Brent of 10 games for killing someone while he was driving intoxicated ffs.  But you keep on waiving this 'consent' flag (in a sexual contact, not sexual assault/rape situation) like it's a worse offense . Never mind that in a click based media world, the information we'll be granted access to in a situation like this will be of the most sensationalized variety.  We certainly haven't seen the outlets like ESPN.com providing updates like Florio has now that we're seeing a diminishing preponderance of the salacious narrative and accusers relevant to Watson's NFL fate.

But I guess the hypothetical fate of make believe 'little Timmy' is more important or in your words 'relevant' than the actual fate of a real black QB.

Court of public opinion, obviously.

Admittedly, I made it one paragraph before tuning out. This is a lot. 

 

[TheDirtyWord]

Court of public opinion, obviously.

Admittedly, I made it one paragraph before tuning out. This is a lot. 

Seems like tuning out is your M.O since last week you were still claiming 20+ cases as the basis for Watson's year long suspension when it was confirmed the NFL presented 5.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Seems like tuning out is your M.O since last week you were still claiming 20+ cases as the basis for Watson's year long suspension when it was confirmed the NFL presented 5.

You keep trying to make it about race, which is absurd.

So indeed - I’m tuning you out. It’s wrong, and I won’t waste my time reading it.

 

[JoeKappBudGrant]

You are completely misinterpreting the significance of there only being "five" cases presented.  In the court of public opinion 66 cases obviously look worse than five cases.  A prosecutor presenting evidence to a Judge will only use the strongest evidence.  I believe the NFL attorneys know how to do their job.  They used the five victims that were the most credible, least impeachable and most consistent in reporting their facts.  I am assuming they all testified that Watson ejaculated on them without their consent.  That is a sexual battery if Watson did it knowingly.  It is not necessary to prove that it was done by force or coercion.  In a criminal case the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, but in a civil case it is by a preponderance of the evidence.  Watson could argue that it was an "accident" but throwing in the tiny towels and sexually suggestive conversations, I believe the trier of fact will find otherwise.  Five victims all testifying clearly and convincingly are sufficient to establish a consistent pattern of inappropriate sexual behavior by Watson.  I believe the NFL attorneys presented the five strongest witnesses.

 

[TheWinz]

I am going to ask a single easy question - is the number 66 being disputed by team Watson?

 

[TheWinz]

I am going to ask a single easy question - is the number 66 being disputed by team Watson?

I am being serious here.  Has team Watson said that number (66) is blowing it way out of proportion, or are they agreeing that 66 is the number of masseuses who serviced him over a 17-month period?

 

[habsfan]

Seems like tuning out is your M.O since last week you were still claiming 20+ cases as the basis for Watson's year long suspension when it was confirmed the NFL presented 5.

I'm wondering why common sense can't factor in here. If you need to engage 66 different massage therapists, something is very, very wrong. Why can't you get a "second date" with a professional massage therapist? Why don't you want a "second date" with a massage therapist? Why do you need to fly people in from here, there and everywhere?

To me this is like rolling papers. Sure they might be used for tobacco but 97% of the time they aren't. They're used for weed. Why do we need to pretend this isn't what it clearly is?

 

[DropKick]

I am being serious here.  Has team Watson said that number (66) is blowing it way out of proportion, or are they agreeing that 66 is the number of masseuses who serviced him over a 17-month period?

It doesn't matter if its 166.

 

[TheWinz]

I'm wondering why common sense can't factor in here. If you need to engage 66 different massage therapists, something is very, very wrong. Why can't you get a "second date" with a professional massage therapist? Why don't you want a "second date" with a massage therapist? Why do you need to fly people in from here, there and everywhere?

To me this is like rolling papers. Sure they might be used for tobacco but 97% of the time they aren't. They're used for weed. Why do we need to pretend this isn't what it clearly is?

Exactly.  As soon as I read the number 66, I made up my mind.  I do not care what the length of punishment is, or is not.  I don't care if all 66 women say he was a perfect gentleman.  I will simply assume they have been paid to keep quiet.  Hey, I need $100K... I will gladly be masseuse #67.

 

[Soulfly3]

 I am assuming they all testified that Watson ejaculated on them without their consent.  That is a sexual battery if Watson did it knowingly..

Serious question - how is ejaculating on someone without their consent NOT full blown sexual assault? You aren't massaging someone and magically, out of nowhere, you have an instant erection and nut... There'd be some force/coercion involved for that to occur during a massage. 

Also, I believe (but not fully confident) only one woman PUBLICLY mentioned the ejaculation. So could be 20, but only 1 we actually know about. 

 

[TheDirtyWord]

You are completely misinterpreting the significance of there only being "five" cases presented.  In the court of public opinion 66 cases obviously look worse than five cases.  A prosecutor presenting evidence to a Judge will only use the strongest evidence.  I believe the NFL attorneys know how to do their job.  They used the five victims that were the most credible, least impeachable and most consistent in reporting their facts.  I am assuming they all testified that Watson ejaculated on them without their consent.  That is a sexual battery if Watson did it knowingly.  It is not necessary to prove that it was done by force or coercion.  In a criminal case the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, but in a civil case it is by a preponderance of the evidence.  Watson could argue that it was an "accident" but throwing in the tiny towels and sexually suggestive conversations, I believe the trier of fact will find otherwise.  Five victims all testifying clearly and convincingly are sufficient to establish a consistent pattern of inappropriate sexual behavior by Watson.  I believe the NFL attorneys presented the five strongest witnesses.

So it’s interesting that you used the words ‘cases’ when describing 1) what the NFL presented to the arbiter and 2) the total number of encounters.  

Allow me to cut and paste from the Vrentas piece.

Watson has said publicly that he hired about 40 different therapists across his five seasons in Houston, but The Times’s reporting found that he booked appointments with at least 66 different women in just the 17 months from fall 2019 through spring 2021.

So what you’ve done is co-mingled what the NFL presented in a formal matter regarding Watson’s professional fate with the term ‘booked appointments’ of which it’s on record that a portion (20-30%) are on record as having stated they had no issues with Watson.  But you’re now using ‘cases’ interchangeably in the court of public opinion which I’ve just shown how misinformed can be.

Secondly, will a prosecutor only present the strongest evidence?  That’s a judgment call on your part, of which you made several, none more egregious as this ‘I am assuming they all testified that Watson ejaculated on them without their consent’

Why would you assume that?

If the evidence was stronger in more than 5, are you saying that the NFL determined ‘no, 5 is enough…we don’t want to waste anyone’s time’ or ‘this happened 5 times…you can see where this leads to dozens’?  Of course not…if the NFL felt better about more than 5 of these cases, they would have presented evidence to the arbiter to include more than 5.  After all, they are looking to suspend Watson INDEFINTELY, something they acknowledged is UNPRECEDENTED.

And those 5 women didn’t testify ‘clearly and concisely’ in front of Robinson.  The NFL presented evidence from their investigation centering around those 5 women.

So if anyone is doing any misrepresenting, I’d say it the poster who used ‘I believe’ three times, ‘I’m assuming’ once and misrepresented the actual facts/timeline of how this situation has and is unfolding.

 

[Soulfly3]

Could be something, could be nothing...

Josina Anderson, who is being nudged for presenting "positive" information about deshaun's case in the last days, posted this tweet on July 8th:

We'll see what details become public via the decision from jointly appointed officer Sue Robinson &/or perhaps an eventual arbitration record ala BountyGate, Ray Rice, DeflateGate-or potential court filings. Clearly the scope of the NFL's investigation is autonomous and separate.

Then, July 10, her next football related tweet, and final tweet since, posted:

Just wait ‘til certain things come to light… Then it will be understood.

 

[daveR]

I am going to ask a single easy question - is the number 66 being disputed by team Watson?

I can't tell you if the legal team disputed the number, or even if that particular number was alleged by the NFL, but in a live interview, he said that the number was not that large.  I can't quote him, but the sense I got was that the number itself was large, maybe 50+, but not 66. 

 

[Grahamburn]

The NFL PCP applies to all NFL personnel.  Kraft hasn't been suspended from being engaged with the Patriots.  His case wasn't even reviewed by the NFL under the PCP (which it clearly should have been).

I agree with the creepiness factor on Watson.  Seems an odd fetish for someone who has the world at his doorstep.  But is the NFL legislating creepiness, alleged at that?  To a harsher extent than Kraft who was caught on tape engaging in an illegal sex act?  Or Kim for driving with a BAC of .193 (5 games) - who pled guilty!!??

But in saying 'let's not take this down the race path'...why wouldn't the African-American community not look at the comparable leniency afforded Kraft/Keim who from a legal and evidentiary perspective committed acts as (Kraft) if not more concerning (Keim), if Watson were to get the book thrown at him?  

The difference is Keim didn’t hit anyone with his car. 

Watson certainly did hit someone with his jizz. 

Maybe use Henry Riggs as a better comp?

 

[Soulfly3]

Watson certainly did hit someone with his jizz. 

....

 

[TheDirtyWord]

The difference is Keim didn’t hit anyone with his car. 

Watson certainly did hit someone with his jizz. 

Maybe use Henry Riggs as a better comp?

Or Josh Brent, who while driving intoxicated killed his teammate (10 games).

 

[Faust]

NFL, NFLPA briefs due today in Deshaun Watson case

 

[Anarchy99]

I wonder if the new arbitration / discipline officer process will end up being any different than the way things went before. I know that Robinson will spell out her recommendation and why, but it's not binding (unless she recommends no punishment at all).

Isn't it possible that the league, while only arguing 5 cases to the arbitrator, could come up with a longer suspension on appeal based on the high number of accusers? They may not come out and phrase it that way, but they could describe it as Watson having "multiple incidents" (not defined) and therefore they will pick a longer suspension time.

Basically, if Goodell polled the owners, and the majority want DW out for a season, what's to stop Roger from handing down a yearlong suspension with some wishy washy reasoning? As long as Robinson suggests at least a 1 game suspension, on appeal, Goodell could say, "Sorry, nowhere near long enough."

 

[Soulfly3]

if roger is ok w a massive and public appeal by Watson and the nflpa, then yes he can do that. 

but methinks roger knows there's a LOT of slimy information about the league (and some owners) that might arise from that. 

 

[Soulfly3]

@ProFootballTalk

NFL's case against Deshaun Watson is down to four, not five, accusers.

 

[Soulfly3]

@ProFootballTalk

NFL's case against Deshaun Watson is down to four, not five, accusers.

Per Mike Florio, Judge Sue Robinson TOSSED one of the 5 cases presented by the NFL. 

..... I'm just pass on commenting.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

Per Mike Florio, Judge Sue Robinson TOSSED one of the 5 cases presented by the NFL. 

..... I'm just pass on commenting.

As we hear it, the decision by the league to cut to five from four may not have been voluntary. The fifth woman’s claim, we’re told, may have been based solely on a media report. 

 

[Soulfly3]

Between Josina seeming like she's taking Deshaun's side (and taking some heat for it from women in her comments) and Florio seemingly doing a 180 from end Deshaun's career to "let's see if he even gets suspended", I'm starting to wonder what the hell is really going on, and what did the NFL even present?

 

[ghostguy123]

At this point it doesn't matter what is presented.  The NFL feels like he HAS to be suspended.  

They don't make decisions based on anything but money and public perception. Not arguing the philosophy, just sayin 

 

[Soulfly3]

At this point it doesn't matter what is presented.  The NFL feels like he HAS to be suspended. 

Well, it does matter... If they presented trash, then he won't get a single game. And if Sue says zero, it stays zero. NFL powerless.

Hence, what the actual hell did they present?

 

[TheDirtyWord]

Between Josina seeming like she's taking Deshaun's side (and taking some heat for it from women in her comments) and Florio seemingly doing a 180 from end Deshaun's career to "let's see if he even gets suspended", I'm starting to wonder what the hell is really going on, and what did the NFL even present?

Just seems real odd for the NFL to have conducted a year long investigation to get to this moment so that 20% of the cases they presented were potentially centered on a claim based on a media report.

On top of this revelation from last week…

I’m told there’s a recording of an interview with the adult son of 1 of 12 women the NFL interviewed in the Deshaun Watson case — stating his mom initially was complimentary of Watson in their conversations after the massage, but later switched her account and tone after negative allegations surfaced about Watson. The son intimated his mother intended to reward his silence, per league source. There’s a feeling that the NFL was initially cagey about details they learned from the woman’s son — after only mentioning they interviewed him in their report. The son’s recording was later reviewed by Watson’s side revealing the aforementioned details — presumably illuminating why this particular accuser was not included with the 5 women the NFL ultimately focused on at the hearing.”

So the NFL didn’t include this case as part of their 5, but they included the one based on a media report?

 

[-OZ-]

if roger is ok w a massive and public appeal by Watson and the nflpa, then yes he can do that. 

but methinks roger knows there's a LOT of slimy information about the league (and some owners) that might arise from that. 

burn it all down. 

As we hear it, the decision by the league to cut to five from four may not have been voluntary. The fifth woman’s claim, we’re told, may have been based solely on a media report. 

“The fifth woman was not interviewed by the league.” 
i have no idea what the hell the league is doing. Unless there’s a REALLY good explanation, this is inexcusable. Professionally embarrassing. 
seriously, their process is more reason to turn off the league than any individual’s misconduct. 

 

[Soulfly3]

hear me out here - based SOLELY on the info that's starting to leak (from very reputable sourses, ie: josina), was all this "the league wants him suspended for a year" talk a load of total garbage?

by the sounds of it, they might actually want him on the field week 1.

how do you, as TheDirtyWord stated, have 20% of your argument tossed out by a judge after 1yr of work? 

AGAIN... for clarity. I am not defending him or saying he doesn't deserve a suspension... I'm talking about what's actually going on and what the judge is having to see and/or not see.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

 Unless there’s a REALLY good explanation, this is inexcusable.

Maybe that explanation is that there wasn’t a lot of ‘there’ there.

I’m 100% reading tea leaves here…but we have a situation where

1) Two GJ’s declined to move forward in any of these cases.
2) Of the 22 original cases, there seems to be a significant degree of reluctance to open up communication channels with the NFL.
3) Of the 12 that the NFL interviewed, there already seem to be significant and verifiable credibility with 2 of them.  Not to mention that one of the 5 they DID present must have been outside those 12 if the claim is true today’s Florio report.

Is it possible that during this investigation, the NFL as a standard of legal and investigative practice realized that ‘Yikes, lines weren’t crossed’ or at the very least ‘no way we can prove lines were crossed’,  but from a PR standpoint, knew that they simply couldn’t state their findings as such with no path toward condemnation?

And if we think about the ‘preponderance of evidence’ threshold the NFL league source yesterday referred to…which requires a greater than 50% chance that the behavior in question occurred, wouldn’t Watson’s defense do the math and say of the 12 interviewed, 4 are being presented by the NFL?  The other one was not part of the 12 and the judge threw it out.

 

[ghostguy123]

Well, it does matter... If they presented trash, then he won't get a single game. And if Sue says zero, it stays zero. NFL powerless.

Hence, what the actual hell did they present?

Not the judge, the NFL.

Public perception is a real thing.  Facts don't matter to the public hardly ever. 

 

[-OZ-]

Maybe that explanation is that there wasn’t a lot of ‘there’ there.

I’m 100% reading tea leaves here…but we have a situation where

1) Two GJ’s declined to move forward in any of these cases.
2) Of the 22 original cases, there seems to be a significant degree of reluctance to open up communication channels with the NFL.
3) Of the 12 that the NFL interviewed, there already seem to be significant and verifiable credibility with 2 of them.  Not to mention that one of the 5 they DID present must have been outside those 12 if the claim is true today’s Florio report.

Is it possible that during this investigation, the NFL as a standard of legal and investigative practice realized that ‘Yikes, lines weren’t crossed’ or at the very least ‘no way we can prove lines were crossed’,  but from a PR standpoint, knew that they simply couldn’t state their findings as such with no path toward condemnation?
 

Sure, as lot of things are possible.  but that doesn’t excuse presenting the case without talking to the woman. if you don’t want to talk to her for whatever reason, don’t present that as part of your case. This is base level, barely out of college investigators seem to understand this concept - based solely on my experience. 
 

 

[massraider]

but methinks roger knows there's a LOT of slimy information about the league (and some owners) that might arise from that. 

I am a massive fan of the "the NFL better look out, or Mr. X will leak all their dirty laundry" posts in the Shark Pool. 

I don't know when they started, maybe in the Danny Snyder stuff, but if people could tag me anytime they see another one, I'd appreciate it. These are gold. 

 

[ghostguy123]

I am a massive fan of the "the NFL better look out, or Mr. X will leak all their dirty laundry" posts in the Shark Pool. 

I don't know when they started, maybe in the Danny Snyder stuff, but if people could tag me anytime they see another one, I'd appreciate it. These are gold. 

Yep, seems dumb

 

[-OZ-]

hear me out here - based SOLELY on the info that's starting to leak (from very reputable sourses, ie: josina), was all this "the league wants him suspended for a year" talk a load of total garbage?

by the sounds of it, they might actually want him on the field week 1.

how do you, as TheDirtyWord stated, have 20% of your argument tossed out by a judge after 1yr of work? 

AGAIN... for clarity. I am not defending him or saying he doesn't deserve a suspension... I'm talking about what's actually going on and what the judge is having to see and/or not see.

Could be. 
I’d personally have given the league a lot more credit if they simply had said, that after their investigation, he either didn’t violate the PCP, or the evidence was incredibly weak. Or at least present the base case you can, based on witnesses / alleged victims you actually interviewed. Just present the 4. They lose credibility by presenting the 5th without doing the work and then getting it tossed. 

 

[Soulfly3]

wild how the league can be run like absolute doggy doodoo and it doesn't matter in the least.

the money flows harder and harder, year after year.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

Could be. 
I’d personally have given the league a lot more credit if they simply had said, that after their investigation, he either didn’t violate the PCP, or the evidence was incredibly weak. Or at least present the base case you can, based on witnesses / alleged victims you actually interviewed. Just present the 4. They lose credibility by presenting the 5th without doing the work and then getting it tossed. 

Isn’t there a bit of ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ bent to the options the NFL had?

If they say he didn’t violate the PCP, then they are crucified for being lenient.

By trying to get an indefinite suspension, they can claim they went after Watson ‘with everything they had’.  At the same time, it is possible that while the public face of the NFL is , behind closed doors, the ‘no there there’ judgment is the conclusion.  So they present a case with holes in it, and put the burden on the independent arbiter to make the call.

Lets be frank, the PCP is solely about PR anyway, right?

 

[Boone22]

wild how the league can be run like absolute doggy doodoo and it doesn't matter in the least.

the money flows harder and harder, year after year.

They essentially have a monopoly on a product a LOT of people want.  

 

[-OZ-]

Isn’t there a bit of ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ bent to the options the NFL had?

If they say he didn’t violate the PCP, then they are crucified for being lenient.

By trying to get an indefinite suspension, they can claim they went after Watson ‘with everything they had’.  At the same time, it is possible that while the public face of the NFL is , behind closed doors, the ‘no there there’ judgment is the conclusion.  So they present a case with holes in it, and put the burden on the independent arbiter to make the call.

Lets be frank, the PCP is solely about PR anyway, right?

From a PR perspective, sure. There was going to be negative feedback anyway. 
Just not if they care, at all, about credibility.  If they felt presenting a half-assed case was the right, or best, answer I’ll just disagree and move on. 
i don’t believe the PCP is 100% about PR. But things like this sure make that look right. 

 

[TheDirtyWord]

From a PR perspective, sure. There was going to be negative feedback anyway. 
Just not if they care, at all, about credibility.  If they felt presenting a half-assed case was the right, or best, answer I’ll just disagree and move on. 
i don’t believe the PCP is 100% about PR. But things like this sure make that look right. 

The new PCP was supposed to apply Bob Kraft, no?  That didn’t even make it to Robinson or any review process.  It kind of just…went away.  Was that credible?

You’re still watching the NFL though?  Right?

 

[-OZ-]

The new PCP was supposed to apply Bob Kraft, no?  That didn’t even make it to Robinson or any review process.  It kind of just…went away.  Was that credible?

You’re still watching the NFL though?  Right?

I can excuse the Kraft issue due to consent. Your opinion may differ. 

I’ll probably still watch in TV.  while not paying anything directly to the league, not paying for extra viewing or attending games. Most likely I’ll leave my 3 leagues after this year, then probably stop watching like I have other pro sports.  My interest has been waning anyway. 

 

[ffmail4me]

4-6 games according to a post by an ESPN rep

 

[TheDirtyWord]

I can excuse the Kraft issue as legal conduct. Your opinion may differ. 

I’ll probably still watch in TV.  while not paying anything directly to the league, not paying for extra viewing or attending games. Most likely I’ll leave my 3 leagues after this year, then probably stop watching like I have other pro sports.  My interest has been waning anyway. 

You may excuse it…and maybe after a review, the league would have too.  But there was none.

So the  as to the credibility of the PCP seems…tardy.

The one thing the NFL ain’t is dumb.  

I had this discussion with @Hot Sauce Guy…while he thinks race isn’t an issue in this case, well maybe it isn’t.  From a certain POV.  But maybe it is from someone else’s.  Quite frankly, there is a lot of disagreement on this subject in this country.  A lot of gray area.

But if Watson’s team used Kraft’s case as precedent as to why he shouldn’t be suspended, you don’t think that wouldn’t be used as a lightning rod for another race debate relating to the NFL’s handling of both cases if he does miss games?  That narrative wouldn’t take place?

After all of the superficial ‘social justice’ displays (helmets, end zone stenciling, etc) they’ve hung their hat on in recent years?

The NFL wants this to go away as bad as Watson does IMO.  I think they want 0 games.  They know that that narrative is around the corner if he does miss any.  And after some of these reports, I’m getting an Austin Powers ‘oops, I fell over…oops, I fell over again’ vibe from how they’ve handled their case.

Again…this is my tea leaves reading on the subject.  Could be 100% wrong based on the outcome.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Could be. 
I’d personally have given the league a lot more credit if they simply had said, that after their investigation, he either didn’t violate the PCP, or the evidence was incredibly weak. Or at least present the base case you can, based on witnesses / alleged victims you actually interviewed. Just present the 4. They lose credibility by presenting the 5th without doing the work and then getting it tossed. 

read this and the first thing that comes to mind is.....are we forgetting that he settled 20 cases.... and by doing so basically admitted that he is guilty of these behaviors....?

I mean are we saying that as long as you settle cases in civil court.....you get a hall pass and there will be no consequences for you whatsoever in terms of suspensions, etc.....it's like those 20 things with those women never even happened....?...you didn't violate PCP......?....c'mon man...

haven't players faced suspensions etc., for things they have done and ended up settling civil cases.....?

I guess my point is....it feels like no matter what was presented and what this judge "recommends"....Rog and the boys can still pull the trigger on a suspension....

 

[massraider]

4-6 games according to a post by an ESPN rep

I got a Sleeper alert for this, and I'm like, who is @TheRealTRizzo?? 

Meantime, this is the only alert not related to crap they selling from Sleeper. Weird

 

[TheDirtyWord]

Rich Eisen: Kraft v Watson…

Sure…black people won’t notice…

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Rich Eisen: Kraft v Watson…

Sure…black people won’t notice…

first day on the Internet, huh?

Protip; Black people are also capable of false equivalence. Especially when they’re hunting for clicks. 

 

[Soulfly3]

I guess my point is....it feels like no matter what was presented and what this judge "recommends"....Rog and the boys can still pull the trigger on a suspension....

unless she says zero, because the league presented a pile of crap instead of actually presenting some substance, which couldnt have been that hard to do.