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 (9 Viewers)

yellowdog said:
Now look at how the law handles DUI vs. non-consensual sexual contact.
Click to expand...
If you were wondering, why the NFL cracks down on players convicted of DUIs.

NFL players who did not get caught until they killed people driving while under the influence.  

Josh Brent = killed a person driving while impaired

Leonard Little = killed a person driving while impaired 

Donte Stallworth = killed a person driving while impaired 

Most recent incident:

LVMPD@LVMPD

The driver of the Chevrolet, identified as 22-year-old Henry Rugs III, remained on scene and showed signs of impairment. He was transported to UMC hospital to be treated for non-life-threatening injuries. Ruggs will be charged with DUI resulting in death.

 
TheWinz said:
How many adult males have driven drunk and not been caught?

OK, now do adult males who have ejaculated on strangers against their will.
Click to expand...


Ejaculation During Massage Can Be Triggered in Some Men

This is an acknowledged possibility in this industry.  It's obviously awkward, potentially for both parties...but Watson would not be the first person to do so in such a setting.  Won't be the last.  Plus, for some men, perhaps even a very few...hitting certain spots during a massage could be characterized as chronic.  Every time a therapist hits 'the spot', it can produce this reaction.  

Now maybe Watson knowing this would schedule these massages with a host of different therapists figuring he would 'release'.  If that was his motivation...yes, creepy, particularly if he started to weaponize it.  Against the law though?  When it's acknowledged as somewhat of an occupational hazard?

Also on the plausiblity scale is needing a massage and not wanting to use team provided ones due to embarrassment from his condition and having to face that/those individuals when you go to work.  And using different therapists to not have to face someone who'd massaged him previously is in the realm of plausibility too.

The point here is that there has been a widespread public judgment on Watson based on accounts that don't include Watson's version of events.  The above scenarios are purely hypothetical.  I have no clue how Watson defended himself behind closed doors.  But I do know the public narrative has rendered judgment on Watson without hearing from him.  And I think that's been a common complaint from the African-American community that they don't receive the same 'presumption of innocence until proven guilty' baseline that ALL Americans are theoretically entitled to.

 
TheDirtyWord said:
Funny how you're accusing me of false equivalence yet you're not even referring to the owner in question in my post. 🤣 Nor Steve Keim, a team employee (just like Deshaun Watson).

My clear terms involved invoking actual law and statutes as their written by the state judicial systems.  What clear terms are you using.  Your opinion...once again.  You seem to think that supersedes law and the actual policy itself so let me point you to Gloria Allred's posting of the NFL PCP.  I hear she knows the law a bit.

NFL Personal Conduct Policy

All persons associated with the NFL are required to avoid “conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the National Football League.” This requirement applies to players, coaches, other team employees, owners, game officials and all others privileged to work in the National Football League.
Click to expand...
his feelings are of the utmost importance

law and facts are nuisances to be avoided

 
-OZ- said:
the league can spin this in a way that there will be plenty of support for the poor, maligned, falsely accused players who is entitled to due process and a neutral arbiter. 
i don’t think that happens, but many people would support the concept of his innocence. It’s already happening here. 
Click to expand...
I just don't see any chance of the league doing that on behalf of Watson. They will try to nail him to a cross as much as possible.

 
TheDirtyWord said:
Ejaculation During Massage Can Be Triggered in Some Men

This is an acknowledged possibility in this industry.  It's obviously awkward, potentially for both parties...but Watson would not be the first person to do so in such a setting.  Won't be the last.  Plus, for some men, perhaps even a very few...hitting certain spots during a massage could be characterized as chronic.  Every time a therapist hits 'the spot', it can produce this reaction.  

Now maybe Watson knowing this would schedule these massages with a host of different therapists figuring he would 'release'.  If that was his motivation...yes, creepy, particularly if he started to weaponize it.  Against the law though?  When it's acknowledged as somewhat of an occupational hazard?

Also on the plausiblity scale is needing a massage and not wanting to use team provided ones due to embarrassment from his condition and having to face that/those individuals when you go to work.  And using different therapists to not have to face someone who'd massaged him previously is in the realm of plausibility too.

The point here is that there has been a widespread public judgment on Watson based on accounts that don't include Watson's version of events.  The above scenarios are purely hypothetical.  I have no clue how Watson defended himself behind closed doors.  But I do know the public narrative has rendered judgment on Watson without hearing from him.  And I think that's been a common complaint from the African-American community that they don't receive the same 'presumption of innocence until proven guilty' baseline that ALL Americans are theoretically entitled to.
Click to expand...
 wow....just wow...

if he has this condition.....why settle the cases....?...sounds like he would have an easy out and move on....

and let's bury our heads in the sand again for a minute and go down that rabbit hole that he has this condition....does something have to be specifically spelled out and against the law for you to know its not right to weaponize it and put these ladies in that position.....your defending of this by asking if it is against the law is creepy in it's own right....I don't care whether it was against the law or not....it ain't right to "weaponize it" and should be punished accordingly.....I can't believe the lengths you are going to with this ####....

 
Why would Josina be spreading pro-watson propaganda on her timeline?

She can very easily choose NOT to tweet that, and I'm actually surprised she did.... At the very least you know the dude's creepy, so why not just stay silent?

 
TheDirtyWord said:
Ejaculation During Massage Can Be Triggered in Some Men

This is an acknowledged possibility in this industry.  It's obviously awkward, potentially for both parties...but Watson would not be the first person to do so in such a setting.  Won't be the last.  Plus, for some men, perhaps even a very few...hitting certain spots during a massage could be characterized as chronic.  Every time a therapist hits 'the spot', it can produce this reaction.  

Now maybe Watson knowing this would schedule these massages with a host of different therapists figuring he would 'release'.  If that was his motivation...yes, creepy, particularly if he started to weaponize it.  Against the law though?  When it's acknowledged as somewhat of an occupational hazard?

Also on the plausiblity scale is needing a massage and not wanting to use team provided ones due to embarrassment from his condition and having to face that/those individuals when you go to work.  And using different therapists to not have to face someone who'd massaged him previously is in the realm of plausibility too.

The point here is that there has been a widespread public judgment on Watson based on accounts that don't include Watson's version of events.  The above scenarios are purely hypothetical.  I have no clue how Watson defended himself behind closed doors.  But I do know the public narrative has rendered judgment on Watson without hearing from him.  And I think that's been a common complaint from the African-American community that they don't receive the same 'presumption of innocence until proven guilty' baseline that ALL Americans are theoretically entitled to.
Click to expand...
Oooookay. Imma check out until the suspension news breaks. 

Have fun with…well with whatever this is.  :unsure:

 
Stinkin Ref said:
 wow....just wow...

if he has this condition.....why settle the cases....?...sounds like he would have an easy out and move on....

and let's bury our heads in the sand again for a minute and go down that rabbit hole that he has this condition....does something have to be specifically spelled out and against the law for you to know its not right to weaponize it and put these ladies in that position.....your defending of this by asking if it is against the law is creepy in it's own right....I don't care whether it was against the law or not....it ain't right to "weaponize it" and should be punished accordingly.....I can't believe the lengths you are going to with this ####....
Click to expand...
Why settle the cases?  Quite a few reasons actually...but the biggest would be to move on.  15 months later and not one of the original 22 suits had made it to court.  Of the 4 remaining, it does appear that Solis' case is being tried individually.  So my assumption is that if he hadn't settled, he would have had to take part in these civil suits individually.  As it stands, Solis' case isn't being tried until 3/1/2023 at the earliest.  So Watson was likely looking at years in a courtroom.

Let's also realize that without the prospect of jail time now that two grand juries have opted not to bring charges, the downside to not fighting these charges is significantly reduced.  Potentially, he could spend a countless amount of resources over years defending himself; dollars, time, energy to try and avoid paying restitution OR he could save himself from those expenditures.  Especially since in the court of public opinion, he's already been found guilty.  So no...there were or are no easy ways out for Watson. 

 
TheDirtyWord said:
Why settle the cases?  Quite a few reasons actually...but the biggest would be to move on.  15 months later and not one of the original 22 suits had made it to court.  Of the 4 remaining, it does appear that Solis' case is being tried individually.  So my assumption is that if he hadn't settled, he would have had to take part in these civil suits individually.  As it stands, Solis' case isn't being tried until 3/1/2023 at the earliest.  So Watson was likely looking at years in a courtroom.

Let's also realize that without the prospect of jail time now that two grand juries have opted not to bring charges, the downside to not fighting these charges is significantly reduced.  Potentially, he could spend a countless amount of resources over years defending himself; dollars, time, energy to try and avoid paying restitution OR he could save himself from those expenditures.  Especially since in the court of public opinion, he's already been found guilty.  So no...there were or are no easy ways out for Watson. 
Click to expand...
but wait...all he would have to do is say he has a "medical condition" right....and that is justification for his behavior.....right...?...and thus there would be nothing wrong with "weaponizing" it ....because you know....it is embarrassing and all.....so everybody would give him a hall pass on his actions and say "oh now we get it you poor guy...you had a condition".....so just tell those 20 women about it and all is good.....no criminal charges/no court/no civil charges/no suspensions/ and no loss of money....because you know.....he didn't do anything wrong....it was a "condition"...should be pretty easy to move on....right...?

you don't get to play the "medical condition card" unless you are willing to take it all the way....so please stop with this stupid ####...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
candian fantasy guy said:
Wait, some of you guys think he won’t get anything? 
 

Which blowback do you think would be worse for the league? 

1-no suspension

or 

2- entire season suspension
Click to expand...
I think a suspension where he comes back is worse.  It's basically saying it's only a suspension worthy offense to sexually assault dozens of women.  It's admitting you know he did these things but let him come back and play anyway instead of lifetime ban.

However, no suspension can be pretty easy to explain.  No crimes were committed, nothing forced, no evidence substantiated. ...........

 
TheDirtyWord said:
The problem in your entire post is the baseline the stats you are referring to relate to criminal acts Watson isn't even accused of.
Click to expand...
I never said that he was. I specifically took the effort to say I don't know. It is certainly possible and plausible that he did  commit some of those things. Really my only point was that the DUI comp needs to go. And that sexual assault can be considered an incredibly serious matter even if ####### death isn't involved FFS.

Watson might not be guilty of any of that stuff that would constitute assault or coersion, etc. But if he is it is pretty heinous though. That's all.

I can't know the truth of what did or didn't happen so what I do (as a FF drafter) is make my best guess based on my own experience and instinct. And I could totally be wrong. But my best guess is that there is never this much smoke without a fire. 

For FF it is irrelevant whether my opinion would hold up in a court of law (it wouldn't). 

 
Man I can't stop myself from opening this thread. Looks like a few aliases and a lot of trolling at this point.

I'm ready for the NFL to give him 6 games. You'll all get to slap each other on the back and celebrate another victory for justice in America.

 
Could people inclined to take this down the race path, take it down the race path? Of course.

I think we need a white player (maybe even a white QB) accused of something like this by multiple people to assess whether or not Watson is being discriminated against.

I guess if you took BigBen's transgressions and added, well, a lot of additional complainants, we'd have a pretty good comparable.

 
TheDirtyWord said:
Every gambling suspension the NFL has handed out in its history has been at least a year.
Click to expand...
I didn't mention any inconsistency.  It was an example of the punishment fitting the "crime".  In the case of Watson, many would think a heavy hit was in line with his actions.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Apple Juice said:
Also props to Soulfly man. Loud and proud until the end.
Click to expand...


i want to be clear, and feel I have been, that he SHOULD be suspended. I think he did a lot of what's being said, maybe just not all of it. 

I like to play both sides for the sake of fun conversation... but ive said several times that he's slimy and almost certainly crossed the line several times. i just feel as though, without the "violence" part of it, it's never worth a year or longer. ever.

 
Soulfly3 said:
i want to be clear, and feel I have been, that he SHOULD be suspended. I think he did a lot of what's being said, maybe just not all of it. 

I like to play both sides for the sake of fun conversation... but ive said several times that he's slimy and almost certainly crossed the line several times. i just feel as though, without the "violence" part of it, it's never worth a year or longer. ever.
Click to expand...
Unless I miss my guess, that's why the arbitrator (why isn't it "arbitor"?) has been written into the CBA.  That is, there are specific actions that trigger suspensions of specific length, and she has to determine if such actions occurred.  That's her part in it. 

 
daveR said:
Unless I miss my guess, that's why the arbitrator (why isn't it "arbitor"?) has been written into the CBA.  That is, there are specific actions that trigger suspensions of specific length, and she has to determine if such actions occurred.  That's her part in it. 
Click to expand...
I believe she's referred to as an arbitrator because she's a "neutral" person granted the authority to be the "judge" to settle a dispute. An arbiter is generally chosen by a party to make the ruling. In a lot of arbitrations it's a three person panel that makes the decision. One chosen by each party in the dispute and one neutral.

It's basically just semantics though.

 
might be worth having a look at Josina Anderson's latest tweets... Not gonna post them as they include photos w directs quotes. 

buzbee seems to be doing a little damage control and walking things back a bit... even confirming that violence/force/coercion wasnt part of the equation. 

 
Dr. Octopus said:
daveR said:
Unless I miss my guess, that's why the arbitrator (why isn't it "arbitor"?) has been written into the CBA.  That is, there are specific actions that trigger suspensions of specific length, and she has to determine if such actions occurred.  That's her part in it. 
Click to expand...
I believe she's referred to as an arbitrator because she's a "neutral" person granted the authority to be the "judge" to settle a dispute. An arbiter is generally chosen by a party to make the ruling. In a lot of arbitrations it's a three person panel that makes the decision. One chosen by each party in the dispute and one neutral.

It's basically just semantics though.
Click to expand...
An arbiter is somebody who provides an opinion to settle an issue. You might be an arbiter of good taste, for example.

An arbitrator is a special kind of arbiter who settles disputes within the context of an arbitration.

The NFL refers to this process as a disciplinary hearing and to Sue Robinson as the Disciplinary Officer. But for all intents and purposes, it's really an arbitration with Sue Robinson as the arbitrator.

 
habsfan said:
I guess if you took BigBen's transgressions and added, well, a lot of additional complainants, we'd have a pretty good comparable.
Click to expand...
It's tough for me to put BigBen's "transgressions" and what is being accused here(no matter how many people are doing the accusing) as anything remotely close to one another. Are people really having a difficulty at finding any difference?

"

In 2010, another accusation surfaced when a 20-year-old college student in Georgia claimed that Roethlisberger assaulted her in the bathroom stall of a nightclub. Her complaint alleged that Roethlisberger’s bodyguard grabbed the woman’s arm and escorted her to a hallway where the quarterback was waiting with “his penis out of his pants.” She says he went on to rape her and a subsequent medical examination of the woman found “superficial laceration and bruising and slight bleeding in the genital area” although no semen was detected. The case was dropped after authorities cited insufficient evidence. Roethlisberger was questioned by just one police officer who coincidentally had asked Roethlisberger to pose for a photo earlier that night and allegedly later described the accuser as a “drunken #####”.

The NFL finally swooped in with a six-game suspension for violating the league’s personal conduct policy but later reduced it to four games for “good behavior.” Yes, an accused rapist received the same punishment from the league as Tom Brady for releasing air from footballs.

"

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/jan/18/ben-roethlisberger-pittsburgh-steelers-quarterback-nfl-sexual-assault-allegations#:~:text=The first “mistake” occurred in,of fixing a broken television.

 
Soulfly3 said:
i want to be clear, and feel I have been, that he SHOULD be suspended. I think he did a lot of what's being said, maybe just not all of it. 

I like to play both sides for the sake of fun conversation... but ive said several times that he's slimy and almost certainly crossed the line several times. i just feel as though, without the "violence" part of it, it's never worth a year or longer. ever.
Click to expand...
I thought I was out, but wanted to mention what Ben Maller said last night (my drive home 11 PM listen) because he absolutely nailed it.

The “violence, force, etc” list that of what he “didn’t do” is a purely distraction tactic, and a lie by omission. Just red meat for the masses in attempt to take the heat off Watson. And sure enough, it’s got thousands of people saying, “see, he didn’t use violence or force, or threaten anyone!” - some even on this topic.  

Any judge will be smart enough to see right though it, too.

Saying he didn’t physically or sexually assault anyone, or use force, or that he didn’t threaten them, or anything else listed omits one critical thing: consent. 

The Watson team didn't say anything about consent. They didn’t claim Watson didn’t non-consensually pleasure himself in their presence, or that he didn’t non-consensually touch them with his junk, or that he didn’t non-consensually ejaculate on them.

And at the end of the day, *those are the only things he’s actually been accused of doing*.

Rusty’s list might as well say he didn’t cheat on his taxes, take PEDs, or have familial relations with a platypus.

It’s all irrelevant. He was accused of very specific behavior: non-consensual contact, and non-consensual uh, load management.

Carry on. 👍🏼

 
Soulfly3 said:
might be worth having a look at Josina Anderson's latest tweets... Not gonna post them as they include photos w directs quotes. 

buzbee seems to be doing a little damage control and walking things back a bit... even confirming that violence/force/coercion wasnt part of the equation. 
Click to expand...
sounds like the poles from the circus tent have been pulled

 
Obie Wan said:
sounds like the poles from the circus tent have been pulled
Click to expand...


I mean, he still did slimy stuff. And he'll almost certainly face some punishment for it. and rightfully so.

But again, the 1yr - lifetime ban stuff is on another universe of a strange ask. 

 
Hot Sauce Guy said:
Saying he didn’t physically or sexually assault anyone, or use force, or that he didn’t threaten them, or anything else listed omits one critical thing: consent. 
Click to expand...
If your daughter is a waitress and someone grabs her bum at work how should the guy who grabbed her be treated?

If your daughter is a waitress and someone pulls her into a bathroom, and another guy rapes her in the bathroom..... how should they be treated?

Both are examples of no consent. So they should be treated the same?

 
BoltBacker said:
If your daughter is a waitress and someone grabs her bum at work how should the guy who grabbed her be treated?

If your daughter is a waitress and someone pulls her into a bathroom, and another guy rapes her in the bathroom..... how should they be treated?

Both are examples of no consent. So they should be treated the same?
Click to expand...
I didn’t say anything remotely like that.

I very extremely specifically referred to Watson’s alleged actions.

Your question/supposition is so out in left field as to be utterly absurd. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hot Sauce Guy said:
The Watson team didn't say anything about consent. They didn’t claim Watson didn’t non-consensually pleasure himself in their presence, or that he didn’t non-consensually touch them with his junk, or that he didn’t non-consensually ejaculate on them.
Click to expand...
Sounds like Ben Maller is speculating.  If not, I want to know how he got into the courtroom. 

 
daveR said:
Sounds like Ben Maller is speculating.  If not, I want to know how he got into the courtroom. 
Click to expand...
No, sorry if that wasn’t clear:  of course he’s speculating. And he made that comment about the list of things going around that Watson allegedly didn’t do.

Its apparently not a new trick for an attorney for the defense to list a ton of transgressions their client *didn’t* do in order to sort of hide the thing they’re  accused of - or at least to leak it to a reporter in attempt to gin up public support. 

And it seems to be working. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hot Sauce Guy said:
No, sorry if that wasn’t clear:  of course he’s speculating. And he made that comment about the list of things going around that Watson allegedly didn’t do.

Its apparently not a new trick for an attorney for the defense to list a ton of transgressions their client *didn’t* do in order to sort of hide the thing their accused of - or at least to leak it to a reporter in attempt to gin up public support. 

And it seems to be working. 
Click to expand...
sort of like the plaintiff's attorney embellishing the alleged actions of the defendant against his snow white plaintiff.

the  horror

 
FWIW, Maller also said that the NFL offered an indefinite suspension, which Watson could have appealed with good behavior to get to 12 games.

e.g. nothing new comes out, no new transgressions, and he’s playing week 13.

And team Watson turned it down.

i feel like that’s a mistake.

 
Hot Sauce Guy said:
FWIW, Maller also said that the NFL offered an indefinite suspension

i feel like that’s a mistake.
Click to expand...


Yep what a mistake here I offer you an indefinite suspension........Watson "ok thank you that is what I was hoping for"

What are you talking about a mistake who the heck is going to accept that.

 
Dez said:
Yep what a mistake here I offer you an indefinite suspension........Watson "ok thank you that is what I was hoping for"

What are you talking about a mistake who the heck is going to accept that.
Click to expand...
You seem to have accidentally edited out the part where he could be reinstated in week 13 with no new transgressions.

Probably just a mistake so I repeated it for you. :rolleyes:  

 
Hot Sauce Guy said:
FWIW, Maller also said that the NFL offered an indefinite suspension, which Watson could have appealed with good behavior to get to 12 games.

e.g. nothing new comes out, no new transgressions, and he’s playing week 13.

And team Watson turned it down.

i feel like that’s a mistake.
Click to expand...
I feel like Maller is a guy that makes good money by saying stuff that can never be verified.

 
daveR said:
I feel like Maller is a guy that makes good money by saying stuff that can never be verified.
Click to expand...
I mean, allegedly this was made public. He cited his source, but as I was driving home zonked after a 14 hour day at my fair booth, I wasn’t able to retain that.  

 
The NFL also reportedly said they wouldn't appeal a 6-8 game suspension "verdict" from Robinson....

Lots of reports, most of which are all caca being thrown at the wall. 

But 6 games anyways. 

 
As a person, I think he is an entitled pervert.  But, that wouldn't stop me from drafting him if the value is right.  Heck, I would roster Adolf Hitler and Charles Manson if I thought it would help me win.

 
TheWinz said:
As a person, I think he is an entitled pervert.  But, that wouldn't stop me from drafting him if the value is right.  Heck, I would roster Adolf Hitler and Charles Manson if I thought it would help me win.
Click to expand...


Yep. The nfl is a video game for me, completely detached from real life. Right or wrong, that's all it is to me. Entertainment. Pure entertainment. 

 
Soulfly3 said:
Yep. The nfl is a video game for me, completely detached from real life. Right or wrong, that's all it is to me. Entertainment. Pure entertainment. 
Click to expand...
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. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Travdogg's positional rankings from week 9 onward
Replies
20
Views
3K
TheDirtyWord
TheDirtyWord
JohnnyU
Weekly Waiver Wire and FAAB Discussion - Week 12
2
Replies
67
Views
5K
ignatiusjreilly
ignatiusjreilly
Football Jones
Blake Watson, RB, Broncos
Replies
0
Views
437
Football Jones
Football Jones

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 7 (members: 0, guests: 7)
Back
Top