What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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!

QB Deshaun Watson, CLE (3 Viewers)

It's really hard not to speculate on this stuff!  It's also amazing to me that whackos are sending death threats to the plaintiffs.  What a F'd up world cyberspace is!  

 
you guys already talk about this mention?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/a-deshaun-watson-accusers-open-letter-cleveland-browns-contract-a-crushing-blow-to-survivors-everywhere?ref=scroll

The day before the grand jury convened to hear our testimonial evidence, a person named Coby DuBose tweeted his speculation that we plaintiffs would be charged with “misdemeanor prostitution,” which would be “funny” for our lawyers. His purported evidence that we were sex workers was based on the fact that many of Watson’s victims work and reside in Houston. DuBose went so far as to claim that his vile lies were the “prevailing sentiment.” Drew Davenport, defense attorney and “Footballguys” staff member, responded to these tweets by saying “Excellent stuff.” When the prosecutors and grand jury failed us, tweets and comments of that nature multiplied exponentially.
Click to expand...

 
Fiddles said:
Drew Davenport, defense attorney and “Footballguys” staff member, responded to these tweets by saying “Excellent stuff.” When the prosecutors and grand jury failed us, tweets and comments of that nature multiplied exponentially.
Click to expand...


Considering Drew Davenport is a guy who seemed decidedly pro-plaintiff in both this and the Flores case, this would seem like a sarcastic comment that he made if indeed the allegations against the plaintiffs were limited to their geographic region. I wouldn't take his comment with anything but a grain of salt. He probably didn't intend it to be read literally. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, I recall his tweets which were supportive of the plaintiffs complaints being taken seriously, etc. So given that I would like to read this one for myself before deciding much.  As well as sarcasm, could be he responded that to one aspect that they got correct in a tweet, but wasn't endorsing the rest of it that came after. Just seems out of whack so I'll reserve judgment.

 
GregR said:
Yeah, I recall his tweets which were supportive of the plaintiffs complaints being taken seriously, etc. So given that I would like to read this one for myself before deciding much.  As well as sarcasm, could be he responded that to one aspect that they got correct in a tweet, but wasn't endorsing the rest of it that came after. Just seems out of whack so I'll reserve judgment.
Click to expand...
If that’s the case then it’s really unfortunate that the plaintiff name-checked him as showing support for the “they’re all prostitutes” narrative.

could be the baby getting thrown out with the bathwater. 

 
GregR said:
Yeah, I recall his tweets which were supportive of the plaintiffs complaints being taken seriously, etc. So given that I would like to read this one for myself before deciding much.  As well as sarcasm, could be he responded that to one aspect that they got correct in a tweet, but wasn't endorsing the rest of it that came after. Just seems out of whack so I'll reserve judgment.
Click to expand...


Exactly. Drew has been extremely supportive of the plaintiffs through this and the comment in the letter was not an accurate picture of his thoughts. Actually the opposite of many of his points on this. 

 
GregR said:
Deshaun Watson traded to Cleveland, and immediately world class guitarist Berta Rojas has her guitar stolen there.

Coincidence, you say?  Hah!  I think not!
Click to expand...
“I’ve played that instrument for 14 years now. It’s been with me in more than 200 concerts that I played in maybe 60 countries - always with the instrument,” she said.

Well gosh Berta, maybe you keep a better eye on the one thing you need for work? This is Cleveland Berta, not Berkeley, we're NOT better than that. WELCOME TO THE LAND!!!!

Head over to Uncle Ben's Pawn Shop in about a week and you'll find it hanging next to the other ones, probably have some initials carved in it, maybe a marijuana leaf but otherwise good to go. Probably get it for less than $15k too  :thumbup:

 
AFC north got a little more interesting.....PIT has the "terrible towel".....Watson comes to CLE and says "hold my beer"...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
if I lived in BAL, PIT, or CIN....I'd get a copyright on the "creepy towel" or some #### and hand them out to my fans every time Watson came to town....

 
BigJim® said:
JMHO, they need to speed up litigating the civil claims. 
Click to expand...
Busbee, the lawyer for the plaintiffs said he was 'hoping to get it to trial ASAP' and said the quickest he could hope for is next FEBRUARY or MARCH.   

I don't know if the docket is THAT FULL or not but that is what he said.

 
Bracie Smathers said:
Busbee, the lawyer for the plaintiffs said he was 'hoping to get it to trial ASAP' and said the quickest he could hope for is next FEBRUARY or MARCH.   

I don't know if the docket is THAT FULL or not but that is what he said.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that was the quote I was remembering. If anyone can't read through what Buzbee is signaling there, they don't understand leverage. I'll be candid that I'm a born Legal cynic. I take with a grain of salt what I read pre-trial about civil litigation. 

 
I'll be surprised if he's not suspended for at least 6 games. 8 feels more likely.

And to be clear, that's just me speculating. I don't know anything you folks don't know. 

 
That it isn't the league deciding the suspension anymore, but is instead the NFL-NFLPA agreed person, makes this tougher to call.  Could be they go lighter or heavier than precedents did when the NFL decided them.

I'd think six is a no-brainer though. Sheer number of lawsuits I could see 8 to 10 games being very feasible. I don't know if they'll wait until the cases are done being tried, but if they do and he loses a bunch, that could also bump up the length of a suspension.

 
GregR said:
That it isn't the league deciding the suspension anymore, but is instead the NFL-NFLPA agreed person, makes this tougher to call.  Could be they go lighter or heavier than precedents did when the NFL decided them.

I'd think six is a no-brainer though. Sheer number of lawsuits I could see 8 to 10 games being very feasible. I don't know if they'll wait until the cases are done being tried, but if they do and he loses a bunch, that could also bump up the length of a suspension.
Click to expand...
To me the number of lawsuits gets tricky since it's all one lawyer.  He isnt super rich being super ethical IMO.  Either way, it might be looked at as closer to one thing than 22.  Nobody knows.

 
ghostguy123 said:
To me the number of lawsuits gets tricky since it's all one lawyer.  He isnt super rich being super ethical IMO.  Either way, it might be looked at as closer to one thing than 22.  Nobody knows.
Click to expand...
I don't know that there being one lawyer will have much to do with anything.  If some of the cases got thrown out because there isn't evidence the women even gave Watson a massage, that might help Watson. But I believe I've seen comments that Buzbee hasn't taken the cases from everyone who came forward.  Actually there are a few that may not have been filed yet, even, I recall hearing.

So I'm making an assumption the cases are limited to women who have some physical evidence. Payment records, Instagram or other messages, etc, at a bare minimum. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't doubt that the 22 women (or nearly all of them) can establish that a massage occurred and was paid for. That doesn't tell us how many can show Watson did something improper warranting substantial damages. Maybe 22, maybe 0. Probably something in between. If the NFL suspends him for 22 incidents or for O, and doesn't have facts for what actually happened in those they suspend for, there is a big chance they way over-punish or under-punish. I think that to be fair, they almost have to wait until the cases are heard or settled before suspending (or not). The problem now is public demand for punishment almost forces the league to do something right now - even though that greatly increases the likelihood they suspend him for more or less than they would have if the trials had already occurred. If the trials find that there is not sufficient evidence to enter a single judgment against him, having already punished him (only then for the sake of publicity) would be pretty outrageous.

In the courts, punishment (other than detention pending bond) would always await judgement on the facts.

 
kind of what I am getting at is....I just don't see how all these civil cases are all heard before the season....

will the NFL wait until they all complete the trial...?...if so....he may not be playing this year if the Feb/March timetable is real...

you would think the NFL would want to see how those shake out before handing down a suspension....so the court "delay" in itself may become another year long suspension....doubt the NFL wants to let him play and then have him be found liable if he fights these like he said he is going too....if he is found liable in all 22 and the NFL had let him play, that may not be a good look...

the options are innocent/liable/settle....so he fights them, settle goes out the window...

if he really does fight these and not "settle like he has indicated....it could take forever......and I think it would be hard for the NFL to just let him play in the meantime...

not sure I said that in the right way...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Catbird said:
I don't doubt that the 22 women (or nearly all of them) can establish that a massage occurred and was paid for. That doesn't tell us how many can show Watson did something improper warranting substantial damages. Maybe 22, maybe 0. Probably something in between. If the NFL suspends him for 22 incidents or for O, and doesn't have facts for what actually happened in those they suspend for, there is a big chance they way over-punish or under-punish. I think that to be fair, they almost have to wait until the cases are heard or settled before suspending (or not). The problem now is public demand for punishment almost forces the league to do something right now - even though that greatly increases the likelihood they suspend him for more or less than they would have if the trials had already occurred. If the trials find that there is not sufficient evidence to enter a single judgment against him, having already punished him (only then for the sake of publicity) would be pretty outrageous.

In the courts, punishment (other than detention pending bond) would always await judgement on the facts.
Click to expand...
They already showed with the Antonio Brown suspension how they handle an upcoming civil case. They don't need it to be over, they just say the suspension is based on evidence obtained in their investigation and if new information comes to light they reserve the right to suspend further.

 
Stinkin Ref said:
you would think the NFL would want to see how those shake out before handing down a suspension....so the court "delay" in itself may become another year long suspension....doubt the NFL wants to let him play and then have him be found liable if he fights these like he said he is going too....if he is found liable in all 22 and the NFL had let him play, that may not be a good look...
Click to expand...
I guess I don't understand why it is so bad for the NFL to just say they are letting the civil cases finish before making a decision regarding suspension.  In the meantime, why is it such a bad thing to let him keep playing?   To me this is similar to when a player appeals their suspension.  Usually they get to keep playing until the appeal is heard.  Then, if warranted, the suspension takes place.  Why is this any different?

If they come down in the plaintiffs favor then they take that into the consideration and suspend him based on the findings that come to light in the courts.  If Watson wins all the cases then nothing happens. If it's somewhere in the middle they suspend based on what happens.  I just don't understand why this is such a difficult thing when thinking logically.

However, I do understand that logic really has nothing to do with this.  It's emotional, it's perception, it's public outcry, it's all of the above.  I just think it really is a shame that we have gotten to the point where someone is treated as guilty until proven innocent.  That is really a big problem because in the cases where the accused have been actually innocent their life is basically ruined anyway.  

I have no idea what happened.  But I am willing to wait until the legal proceedings have finished before treating someone as guilty.  That isn't the case for the majority of people.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I realize this is a far out there concept, but what about "innocent until proven guilty" approach.  Public Opinion can be all over the place.  

 
Gally said:
I guess I don't understand why it is so bad for the NFL to just say they are letting the civil cases finish before making a decision regarding suspension.  In the meantime, why is it such a bad thing to let him keep playing?   To me this is similar to when a player appeals their suspension.  Usually they get to keep playing until the appeal is heard.  Then, if warranted, the suspension takes place.  Why is this any different?

If they come down in the plaintiffs favor then they take that into the consideration and suspend him based on the findings that come to light in the courts.  If Watson wins all the cases then nothing happens. If it's somewhere in the middle they suspend based on what happens.  I just don't understand why this is such a difficult thing when thinking logically.

However, I do understand that logic really has nothing to do with this.  It's emotional, it's perception, it's public outcry, it's all of the above.  I just think it really is a shame that we have gotten to the point where someone is treated as guilty until proven innocent.  That is really a big problem because in the cases where the accused have been actually innocent their life is basically ruined anyway.  

I have no idea what happened.  But I am willing to wait until the legal proceedings have finished before treating someone as guilty.  That isn't the case for the majority of people.  
Click to expand...
I am actually 100% on board and feel the same way....my posts are just in response to the way the NFL sometimes operates and their passion to protect the image of the shield...

I am all for innocent until proven guilty and in the case "letting him play until proven guilty"......I think his reception at stadiums around the league and in the social media arena would be enough of a punishment if he has these hanging over his head during the season...

but the question is....will the NFL let him play before they are resolved....?

and then another question is....if he does end up "settling"....which let's be honest, is in a way "admitting guilt"....how big of a hammer does the NFL bring down or do they act like "nothing to see here...he didn't do anything"....

 
Birdie048 said:
I realize this is a far out there concept, but what about "innocent until proven guilty" approach.  Public Opinion can be all over the place.  
Click to expand...


You have a guy suiting up and playing on TV that is facing 22 sexual assault lawsuits -- it just isn't a good look.

The sports and entertainment industry is all about public opinion, just ask Colin Kapernick.

 
Godsbrother said:
You have a guy suiting up and playing on TV that is facing 22 sexual assault lawsuits -- it just isn't a good look.

The sports and entertainment industry is all about public opinion, just ask Colin Kapernick.
Click to expand...
So it's not a good look to treat someone as innocent until proven guilty?   Allegations and lawsuits are easy to make and mean nothing until their day in court.   The entire problem is that the public treat people as guilty until proven innocent and if/when they are it is too late because they are already branded regardless of the actual facts.  Once that horse has left the barn there really is no way to get it back.  Public opinion couldn't care less about what actually happened if it isn't tearing someone down.  

 
Godsbrother said:
You have a guy suiting up and playing on TV that is facing 22 sexual assault lawsuits -- it just isn't a good look.

The sports and entertainment industry is all about public opinion, just ask Colin Kapernick.
Click to expand...
I agree.  The appearance is not good, but the justice system is designed to start under the premise of Presumed Innocence until proven guilty.  (Unlike Italian Court system).  

 
Godsbrother said:
You have a guy suiting up and playing on TV that is facing 22 sexual assault lawsuits -- it just isn't a good look.

The sports and entertainment industry is all about public opinion, just ask Colin Kapernick.
Click to expand...
The NFL is a pure as the driven snow.

etc., et, el..

 
Gally said:
I guess I don't understand why it is so bad for the NFL to just say they are letting the civil cases finish before making a decision regarding suspension.  In the meantime, why is it such a bad thing to let him keep playing?   To me this is similar to when a player appeals their suspension.  Usually they get to keep playing until the appeal is heard.  Then, if warranted, the suspension takes place.  Why is this any different?

If they come down in the plaintiffs favor then they take that into the consideration and suspend him based on the findings that come to light in the courts.  If Watson wins all the cases then nothing happens. If it's somewhere in the middle they suspend based on what happens.  I just don't understand why this is such a difficult thing when thinking logically.

However, I do understand that logic really has nothing to do with this.  It's emotional, it's perception, it's public outcry, it's all of the above.  I just think it really is a shame that we have gotten to the point where someone is treated as guilty until proven innocent.  That is really a big problem because in the cases where the accused have been actually innocent their life is basically ruined anyway.  

I have no idea what happened.  But I am willing to wait until the legal proceedings have finished before treating someone as guilty.  That isn't the case for the majority of people.  
Click to expand...
logical thinking is where it goes off the rails 

all the claims for immediate suspension is to appease the virtue signaling crowd 

must. feel. good. now.

innocence and actual facts be damned 

 
Gally said:
So it's not a good look to treat someone as innocent until proven guilty?   Allegations and lawsuits are easy to make and mean nothing until their day in court.   The entire problem is that the public treat people as guilty until proven innocent and if/when they are it is too late because they are already branded regardless of the actual facts.  Once that horse has left the barn there really is no way to get it back.  Public opinion couldn't care less about what actually happened if it isn't tearing someone down.  
Click to expand...
The legal system of the United States isn’t the same as the court of public opinion. 

It’s not a good look publicly because the public doesn’t have the “innocent until proven guilty” mindset or mandate.

Someone might have presumed innocence in a court of law. The general public is bound by no such presumption. And when it comes to celebrity justice, the public has seen wealthy/famous people get away with so much that there’s deep cynicism about consequences ever manifesting for wealthy celebrities.

so if anything the presumption by the general public is the opposite of our legal system. And when it comes to a sensitive matter like sexual assault, especially so. People have daughters. Appeals to emotion run high. 

It might not be right or fair, but it is what it is. And the NFL relies on the general public for its meal ticket. So the NFL has to at the least acknowledge the public response, regardless of whether the public response is appropriate or not. 

 
Birdie048 said:
I agree.  The appearance is not good, but the justice system is designed to start under the premise of Presumed Innocence until proven guilty.  (Unlike Italian Court system).  
Click to expand...
That story about Amanda Knox taught me a lot about how the Italian system works. It’s remarkable. 

 
Godsbrother said:
You have a guy suiting up and playing on TV that is facing 22 sexual assault lawsuits -- it just isn't a good look.

The sports and entertainment industry is all about public opinion, just ask Colin Kapernick.
Click to expand...
It's going to be the same look regardless. If Buzbee was accurate saying trials won't begin until Mar/April 2023, there no getting around that Watson will be in games - unless he's suspended for the full season. People repeating predictions over and over as if this is a numeric issue. It isn't. Watson will still have 22 claims against him when he comes off a 6 or 8 game suspension. 6 games will, in retrospect maybe be way to light. Or maybe way too harsh. Or maybe sufficient. It doesn't "solve" anything in 2022, and puts the NFL in a position to justify that decision.

Maybe the NFL is confident broadcasting Watson in mid October->Playoffs, with cases still TBD. "And Watson is back in action, after being suspended for ... what exactly? Embarrassing the league? Well, the same is true in week 7. Detrimental conduct? Ok, if you have determined that, but now Watson and the NFLPA are ballistic that publicizing NFL investigative finding is sabotaging to his defense. Also, get ready for subpoenas/deposition demands regarding the investigative findings that led to determinations.

I honestly have no idea what happens here. If I'm the NFL though, I feel better going public with "This is an unprecedented situation and we think it is best to withhold judgment, until these claims are resolved in court or otherwise." 

 
Bracie Smathers said:
The NFL is a pure as the driven snow.

etc., et, el..
Click to expand...


I wasn't suggesting that Watson was the only NFL player or executive guilty of poor behavior.  It doesn't mean the NFL doesn't care about their public image.

I can respect the notion that the NFL should leave it to the legal system to handle situations like this but precedent has been set and that is not what normally happens.   

 
BigJim® said:
It's going to be the same look regardless. If Buzbee was accurate saying trials won't begin until Mar/April 2023, there no getting around that Watson will be in games - unless he's suspended for the full season. People repeating predictions over and over as if this is a numeric issue. It isn't. Watson will still have 22 claims against him when he comes off a 6 or 8 game suspension. 6 games will, in retrospect maybe be way to light. Or maybe way too harsh. Or maybe sufficient. It doesn't "solve" anything in 2022, and puts the NFL in a position to justify that decision.

Maybe the NFL is confident broadcasting Watson in mid October->Playoffs, with cases still TBD. "And Watson is back in action, after being suspended for ... what exactly? Embarrassing the league? Well, the same is true in week 7. Detrimental conduct? Ok, if you have determined that, but now Watson and the NFLPA are ballistic that publicizing NFL investigative finding is sabotaging to his defense. Also, get ready for subpoenas/deposition demands regarding the investigative findings that led to determinations.

I honestly have no idea what happens here. If I'm the NFL though, I feel better going public with "This is an unprecedented situation and we think it is best to withhold judgment, until these claims are resolved in court or otherwise." 
Click to expand...
great post....are you saying "withholding judgment" means we let him play....?

 
BigJim® said:
I honestly have no idea what happens here. If I'm the NFL though, I feel better going public with "This is an unprecedented situation and we think it is best to withhold judgment, until these claims are resolved in court or otherwise." 
Click to expand...
This is my take as well.  There is no punishment until we know if punishment needs to take place.  Then we evaluate based on the facts we know once all legal proceedings are over.  Why is this a problem?

(I know, I know.....it's a problem because the public has already tried and convicted Watson in the court of public opinion regardless of the actual facts).

 
Gally said:
This is my take as well.  There is no punishment until we know if punishment needs to take place.  Then we evaluate based on the facts we know once all legal proceedings are over.  Why is this a problem?

(I know, I know.....it's a problem because the public has already tried and convicted Watson in the court of public opinion regardless of the actual facts).
Click to expand...


While I agree I am surprised that so many here are concerned about Watson's presumed innocence but weren't expressing similar sentiment for other NFL players that were suspended while legal issues were still in doubt.  Antonio Brown immediately comes to mind but there have been others.

ETA:  Just to play the devil's advocate (ha!).  What should the NFL do if there was a situation of a player being accused of committing a felony -- say selling drugs in a school zone or beating someone to death?  Let him play until his legal matters are over?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Godsbrother said:
While I agree I am surprised that so many here are concerned about Watson's presumed innocence but weren't expressing similar sentiment for other NFL players that were suspended while legal issues were still in doubt.  Antonio Brown immediately comes to mind but there have been others.
Click to expand...
I had the same stance.  I have always had that stance.  I can't speak to others.  

 
If the NFL believes a suspension is ultimately going to happen, then putting him on the Commish Exempt List until they are ready to issue it is probably the best course.

I thought that was very likely. But Goodell's recent comments connecting the List to criminal cases make it seem less likely. 

 
Godsbrother said:
While I agree I am surprised that so many here are concerned about Watson's presumed innocence but weren't expressing similar sentiment for other NFL players that were suspended while legal issues were still in doubt.  Antonio Brown immediately comes to mind but there have been others.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say I'm "concerned" with his presumed innocence. I just don't know how people lock into an arbitrary prediction like 6 games. I just don't see what  something that could become a half measure or overreach in 2023 solves. Certainly not PR that he's on the field in week 8. Yet the NFL will need to explain why it is appropriate. On the other side of the spectrum you could suspend a player for effectively 2 years of his prime while he awaits a snail pace civil process to clear his name. Is that right? There is no right answer here. There is no right explanation for any action.  

You may need to be more specific comparing to Brown. Which suspension? The 8 game one after he entered into a criminal plea? 

 
BigJim® said:
I wouldn't say I'm "concerned" with his presumed innocence. I just don't know how people lock into an arbitrary prediction like 6 games. I just don't see what  something that could become a half measure or overreach in 2023 solves. Certainly not PR that he's on the field in week 8. Yet the NFL will need to explain why it is appropriate. On the other side of the spectrum you could suspend a player for effectively 2 years of his prime while he awaits a snail pace civil process to clear his name. Is that right? There is no right answer here. There is no right explanation for any action.  

You may need to be more specific comparing to Brown. Which suspension? The 8 game one after he entered into a criminal plea? 
Click to expand...
It’s been discussed several times in this topic.

it’s because that’s the precedent set by the NFL with Ben Roethlisburger (1 accusation of sexual assault, no criminal charges) and EZE (No criminal charges). 

Each got hit with a 6-game suspension, though there was subsequent reduction.

It makes predicting. 6-game suspension pretty easy. Time will tell if it’s accurate, but it would be par for the course. 

 
BigJim® said:
I wouldn't say I'm "concerned" with his presumed innocence. I just don't know how people lock into an arbitrary prediction like 6 games. I just don't see what  something that could become a half measure or overreach in 2023 solves. Certainly not PR that he's on the field in week 8. Yet the NFL will need to explain why it is appropriate. On the other side of the spectrum you could suspend a player for effectively 2 years of his prime while he awaits a snail pace civil process to clear his name. Is that right? There is no right answer here. There is no right explanation for any action.  

You may need to be more specific comparing to Brown. Which suspension? The 8 game one after he entered into a criminal plea? 
Click to expand...
I am not sure how the NFL or anyone else determines the number of games for a suspension.  It has always seemed arbitrary to me.

Brown pleaded no-contest so perhaps not the best example.

 
Hot Sauce Guy said:
It’s been discussed several times in this topic.

it’s because that’s the precedent set by the NFL with Ben Roethlisburger (1 accusation of sexual assault, no criminal charges) and EZE (No criminal charges). 

Each got hit with a 6-game suspension, though there was subsequent reduction.

It makes predicting. 6-game suspension pretty easy. Time will tell if it’s accurate, but it would be par for the course. 
Click to expand...
But that is my point. Arguing something has been done before - not involving facts where a guy may either be a serial predator or easy target for shake down due to his own stupidity -  is not an easy prediction for me. If I'm the NFL, I find it much easier to defend 6 game decision in the precedents you mention.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Football Jones
Blake Watson, RB, Broncos
Replies
0
Views
425
Football Jones
Football Jones
J
  • Poll Poll
Richardson or Sanders- Who has more potential?
Replies
14
Views
509
TheWinz
TheWinz
Ministry of Pain
Tankathon '24-'25
2
Replies
52
Views
3K
pollardsvision
pollardsvision

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top