This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Been saying this for a while. I think the PR would be easier for the NFL with zero suspension as opposed to some 6-8 game thing.
Which would also be extremely risky for the NFL, because that would be the NFL exonerating Watson, in a sense.
Where does the fine money go? Back into the NFL coffers or to charity. I agree a large fine along with a suspension seems right but I don’t want the fine $ going to the NFL!
Watson's salary structure is SOP for NFL contracts if a team wants to add salary cap with a large signing bonus and a minimal salary the first year.
Robinson makes a ruling based on the evidence presented before her.
his base salary is $1 million this year and then jumps to $46 million for the next 4.....maybe I have been under a rock, but I don't remember seeing another example of a contract structured in this way with so much disparity.....I am willing to see other examples if you have any and will back track on this point if so....if it is a QB that would help...
It's a game against the salary cap and this has been covered multiple times over the last 4 months. I'm not repeating myself, so it's on those that continue to spread this nonsense to inform themselves. Or keep parroting the nonsense. Choice is yours.
I have no control over what another human being chooses to absorb and what they choose to deflect. I just know that most humans, especially those who developed a strong bias, have a strong tendency to not retain information that veers from that bias. Anyone that's been paying attention has a cliff notes understanding of what the NFL presented in those late June hearings. It's on each human to decide what to do with that information.
Actually we know what some reporters have speculated.
man you sound really pissed....I have no idea what you have said before, so not asking you to repeat yourself....if you could let me know which post you addressed this in previously I will go take a look....sorry I may not have read it before....I was just asking if you have ever heard of another similar contract structure....I realize teams play games with the salary cap/structure all the time, but I have never seen one to this degree, so I was just asking for another example that is similar to this one that you have seen before for a QB....it just seems pretty obvious they structured it this way in anticipation of a suspension....is that line of thinking really out of bounds...?
Laughter <> Pissed
Funny you say that! Cause I don't. He's a scumbag and decisions have consequences. If I let scumbags impact my professional sports rooting interests then I would not root for team sports. Every team has them; we just don't know about most of them. If he gets an indefinite hammer then c'est la'vie. If he gets nothing then c'est la'vie. If he gets something in between then c'est la'vie. It'd take something way out of left field for me to have any sort of reaction to his suspension.
fair enough....my apologies....when you talked about not repeating yourself etc., context seemed a little edgy....I digressLaughter <> Pissed
The Browns contract structures were covered earlier in the thread. If you or anyone else really wants to know then you'll scroll back and ctrl-f your way to the answer. I'm not sure if QB's were, but these two immediately came to mind. Is Watson's different than theirs? Well, yeah. His contract was fully guaranteed, so roster and workout bonuses can't be considered. The general concept remains though. When the Browns (and Bills) need more cap space next year they'll convert some of his base into a signing bonus. When the Chefs need more cap space next year they'll convert some of his roster bonus into a signing bonus. I'm sure there are more than just Mahomes and Allen, but I'm not putting forth the effort to find them. Other people are going to believe what they want to believe. This is not a novel concept though - tiny base + big bonuses then when the base/roster bonus balloon convert X% into a signing bonus as needed.
exactly - you can pretend you have no bias while projecting bias on others (for whatever reason) but you do have some bias. Would you prefer to watch Watson play or Brisset.
THIS...IS...CLEVELAND!!!This is a highly entertaining thread on multiple levels.
That's all.
That's not entirely accurate. If Robinson threw out one of the (5) cases because it was solely based on a media report, from my POV that does give some insight as to the strength of some of the others. I can't think that if picking from 22 suits - and one of the 5 they decided to present was tossed, I wouldn't classify that as zero knowledge. At the same time it's doesn't speak to the strength of the remaining 4. But, did the NFL have 4 really strong cases and included a weak 1 for hits and giggles? It's reasonable to assume that a drop off a 'case quality' of that magnitude if what happened happened, isn't likely.
I think we're being fed information by both sides (Watson's attorney and the NFL) through "leaks" to the media, trying to sway public opinion to those respective sides.
.
The reports I read did not indicate Robinson decided anything. The reports I read said the NFL presented their case admitting that was the case during the hearing. While Buzbee was not part of the hearing his follow up comments when questioned about it seem to support that story.
The above is not zero knowledge. Is it one piece of putting a puzzle together? Well, yeah. Deductive reasoning can lead a reasonable person to more pieces than just that, but perhaps that content is better fit in a more receptive environment. Shoo'ing away the leaks that have streamed out over the last couple weeks is as folly as doing the same with those that came out in the months before the hearing and those that will come out over the next few weeks - regardless of which side those leaks benefit. Isn't anything wrong with listening to/reading everything, believing nothing, and always considering the source though.
...C'mon. I'm not going to get bent out of shape about it if Watson gets the hammer and Brissett's our QB this year. I'll be less reluctant to not accept Sunday invites for events later in the season, but I'm quite used to that by now. We don't know the whole story nor will we ever, but it's quite clear that Watson is creepy. If an example is made out of him whether rightfully or not then c'est la'vie. Decisions have consequences, so if you don't want to get popped then try not scheduling massages with 66 different unlicensed instagram therapists at a Houston Texans arranged hotel.
You have a strange taste. Whenever I check in here to find out, if there are actual news, I see the same guys arguing in circles again and again and again… This must be one of the worst threads in the Shark Pool.This is a highly entertaining thread on multiple levels.
That's all.
This is the closest statement I can find:
Not exactly a very strong statement - and I'm not sure how you can extrapolate that to the NFL presenting a weak case - although it does confirm none of the five cases presented by the NFL involved violence, coercion or force.
Yes, I was wrong about that - maybe based on what was said in here or maybe just on me. It seems they couldn't present that evidence because those women that made those claims settled their cases already.
Why would they not include evidence of the most damning claims then? Seems odd.
The NFL didn't talk to all the women. It apparently talked to twelve women, and elected to focus on five of those twelve at the hearing. The two women alleging coercion were, according to Buzbee, not among the twelve. (I don't know whether the NFL declined to talk to the others beyond those twelve or whether the others refused to talk to the NFL. I'd guess the latter is more likely.)
Yea I don't get it either and I'm a die hard Browns fan. What is there to talk about until the verdict comes down? Yet this thread has pages of back and forth on speculation.
I don't think I'd read a "because" into his semicolon.
discussion on a message board....not sure what those complaining are looking for.....speculation is all anybody has right now...if there is any breaking news I'm sure it will be a dinged notification for most with any type of sports app....if you are relying on this thread for your breaking news updates you are probably doing it wrong....Yea I don't get it either and I'm a die hard Browns fan. What is there to talk about until the verdict comes down? Yet this thread has pages of back and forth on speculation.
Must be the offseason
I think it's highly unlikely this sequence of events played out. If the NFL wanted their testimony and those women were willing then it would have been presented as evidence, as Maurile said. That it wasn't is telling regardless of whether it was one, the other, or both and one reason why I think there's legitimacy to the 'weak case' presented by the NFL report. Is that because there's (relatively) nothing there, the NFL is lazy and going to do what they want anyway (one way or the other), some combination of both, other reason(s?)...I dunno. For outcome purposes I'm not sure it matters.
I just like thediscussion on a message board....not sure what those complaining are looking for.....speculation is all anybody has right now...if there is any breaking news I'm sure it will be a dinged notification for most with any type of sports app....if you are relying on this thread for your breaking news updates you are probably doing it wrong....
emoji. 
don’t forget the terrible takes on both sides of the fence. Those can be fun, too.
