QB Deshaun Watson, CLE (2 Viewers)

[Stinkin Ref]

What's the difference between non-consentual contact and force/coercion

honest question 

if I shampoo you like a buffalo....and you weren't expecting me and didn't want to be shampoo'd like a buffalo....that would go down in my book as a non consensual ......

if I held you down, or intimidated you or made you feel like you in some way that you needed to be a part of said shampooing and it was against your will.....that would be force/coercion....could be as simple as ....if my status/power/whatever made you feel uncomfortable with being shampoo'd but you were too scared or intimidated to say or do anything at the time.... 

 

[Stinkin Ref]

The NFL needed enough evidence to have a finding that Watson violated the PCP and have the arbitrator recommend a suspension. Then Goodell and the league can appeal and inflate the penalty as they see fit (ie, the punishment the owners want imposed). I suspect they will factor in that there were so many court filings. They won't say that, of course. They will just report that Watson had multiple incidents and multiple violations of the PCP, which to them warrants a suspension of X games (or an indefinite suspension if that's what they really want). I would be surprised if the league simply accepts whatever the discipline officer recommends (unless she assigns the suspension they want in the first place).

As I posted already, financially it doesn't make much sense for Watson to appeal through the court system (if it's a lengthy suspension), as Watson would only lose $61K per game suspended on the first year of his contract vs. $2.7M per game if he had to miss games on the second year of his contract. If he played all this season but sat out all next season, it would cost him $45M.

first paragraph is spot on here.....and to the second paragraph, that is why, no matter what type of suspension he gets.....I think a fine in the area of a pro rated "typical" years salary will also accompany said suspension....meaning if its a season somewhere in excess of $40 million....if half a season $20 million.....the monkey games CLE played with the first year of the contract in anticipation of a suspension, while a great move/strategy to attempt.....probably will be frowned upon when the dust settles....

 

[TheDirtyWord]

The NFL needed enough evidence to have a finding that Watson violated the PCP and have the arbitrator recommend a suspension. Then Goodell and the league can appeal and inflate the penalty as they see fit (ie, the punishment the owners want imposed). I suspect they will factor in that there were so many court filings. They won't say that, of course. They will just report that Watson had multiple incidents and multiple violations of the PCP, which to them warrants a suspension of X games (or an indefinite suspension if that's what they really want). I would be surprised if the league simply accepts whatever the discipline officer recommends (unless she assigns the suspension they want in the first place).

As I posted already, financially it doesn't make much sense for Watson to appeal through the court system (if it's a lengthy suspension), as Watson would only lose $61K per game suspended on the first year of his contract vs. $2.7M per game if he had to miss games on the second year of his contract. If he played all this season but sat out all next season, it would cost him $45M.

So as part of their '5'...they included a case that may have been solely based on a media report?  Like of the 22, that was the 5th best?

As I pointed out...Watson bet his career essentially last November when he declined to settle in a situation where a grand jury system that returns indictments 90% of the time had yet to convene.  Years in prison were on the table.

Perhaps the NFL will put that line of reasoning forward about the 'multiple incidents'...wouldn't my first act as Watson's lawyer be what happened to the other 17-18?  I mean...the NFL had to present something if they were going to recommend an UNPRECEDENTED suspension request.  But isn't it hard to establish a cause for 'pattern of behavior'...when 82% of the cases that were initially filed have been deemed by the NFL not to meet that threshold?  Doesn't Hardin's attorney say ' what makes these fiv...I mean four so credible?'  Did their investigation find out that in fact those other 18 women DID give consent?

 

[Stinkin Ref]

So as part of their '5'...they included a case that may have been solely based on a media report?  Like of the 22, that was the 5th best?

As I pointed out...Watson bet his career essentially last November when he declined to settle in a situation where a grand jury system that returns indictments 90% of the time had yet to convene.  Years in prison were on the table.

Perhaps the NFL will put that line of reasoning forward about the 'multiple incidents'...wouldn't my first act as Watson's lawyer be what happened to the other 17-18?  I mean...the NFL had to present something if they were going to recommend an UNPRECEDENTED suspension request.  But isn't it hard to establish a cause for 'pattern of behavior'...when 82% of the cases that were initially filed have been deemed by the NFL not to meet that threshold?  Doesn't Hardin's attorney say ' what makes these fiv...I mean four so credible?'

I'm not sure you can state the bolded.....it's why I asked earlier does the NFL and the PCP consider "settling" 20 civil cases as a free hall pass and "nothing to see here"......

 

[-OZ-]

?  Doesn't Hardin's attorney say ' what makes these fiv...I mean four so credible?'  Did their investigation find out that in fact those other 18 women DID give consent?

Really doesn’t matter. If he violated the PCP, coerced / forced / exposed himself improperly / whatever 4 times, that’s enough. 

 

[TheDirtyWord]

I'm not sure you can state the bolded.....it's why I asked earlier does the NFL and the PCP consider "settling" 20 civil cases as a free hall pass and "nothing to see here"......

I don't know if the most recent two that have been filed were part of those settlements.  But if there were 24, and the NFL presented 5...and Watson settled with 20, then at least 1 of the settled cases was presented.  Each settlement agreement could be different tho.

At the same time, I don't know if any of the settlements could compel (or not) the NFL in any way...I would think they're independent of any agreement since they aren't one of the parties in the settlement.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

Really doesn’t matter. If he violated the PCP, coerced / forced / exposed himself improperly / whatever 4 times, that’s enough. 

What makes these situations more credible than the other 82%?  Credible enough to where even though a grand jury found no evidence to move forward with an indictment (something that happens 90% of the time and is a preferred method of prosecutors to bring charges over preliminary hearings...in part because they have carte blanche to craft the narrative), the NFL could say - 'nope...these 4!'

Plus, NFL did not present evidence in any that included violence/coercion/intimidation/forced action.

 

[-OZ-]

What makes these situations more credible than the other 82%?  Credible enough to where even though a grand jury found no evidence to move forward with an indictment (something that happens 90% of the time and is a preferred method of prosecutors to bring charges over preliminary hearings...in part because they have carte blanche to craft the narrative), the NFL could say - 'nope...these 4!'

Plus, NFL did not present evidence in any that included violence/coercion/intimidation/forced action.

Can we get past the GJ stuff which isn’t relevant at this point? They only decided there wasn’t enough to go forward on CRIMINAL charges. The PCP is not limited to criminality. 
I don’t know what was presented.  Their 5th person gives me some pause as to their competence and evidence. But the GJ, and the other 62 women, are irrelevant. 

 

[CletiusMaximus]

So as part of their '5'...they included a case that may have been solely based on a media report?  Like of the 22, that was the 5th best?

As I pointed out...Watson bet his career essentially last November when he declined to settle in a situation where a grand jury system that returns indictments 90% of the time had yet to convene.  Years in prison were on the table.

Perhaps the NFL will put that line of reasoning forward about the 'multiple incidents'...wouldn't my first act as Watson's lawyer be what happened to the other 17-18?  I mean...the NFL had to present something if they were going to recommend an UNPRECEDENTED suspension request.  But isn't it hard to establish a cause for 'pattern of behavior'...when 82% of the cases that were initially filed have been deemed by the NFL not to meet that threshold?  Doesn't Hardin's attorney say ' what makes these fiv...I mean four so credible?'

I'm not sure you can state the bolded.....it's why I asked earlier does the NFL and the PCP consider "settling" 20 civil cases as a free hall pass and "nothing to see here"......

Agreed. The fact that 20 or 200 civil cases were filed and settled is near-meaningless in the context of an arbitration proceeding regarding a player suspension under the NFL CBA. Nothing of substance can be drawn from the report that the NFL chose to present certain evidence and declined to present other evidence. I think this post and other recent posts are making assumptions based on rumor and 2nd/3rd hand reporting, much of which is limited to 140 characters and omits all legal nuance and context. One of the main reasons companies put mandatory arbitration in their CBAs is the benefit of confidentiality, as opposed to a court proceeding which is public. None of these reporters were in the room and none of them as far as I am aware have read the briefs or seen the evidence the parties presented. When the arbitrator rules, she'll issue a written decision explaining her ruling. Maybe they will choose to make that public (I doubt it). If/when that happens, some (but certainly not all) of the gaps in our knowledge will be filled in. Maybe there will be an appeal that results in a reduction or expansion of a suspension, but again I would not expect a full public airing of the facts and the decision. I get that its the offseason and we all need something to banter about, but most all of this discussion is pure speculation to no meaningful end.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Presumably you’re just talking court of public opinion, but no. Settling a civil case is emphatically NOT an admission of guilt.  I mean, I guess it could be, if part of the settlement is to publicly admit guilt. But that’s rare. Like very. 

It’s been pointed out numerous time that an overwhelming amount of civil cases get settled before trial. It’s a risk-reward analysis for both parties.

 

[Gally]

....yeah as I have indicated several times in this thread, it is not "technically" an admission of guilt, but is often perceived in that way....and I think that applies here big time due to the sheer volume and consistency of the accusations.....

plenty of one off situations where settling or taking a plea is the route to go.....but when you basically say I did nothing wrong even with all the volume here, and then try to spin it that settling is not admitting guilt and was "easier/better" for me to do instead of trying to actually clear my name....IMO that is very telling.....

after criminal charges were off the table....Watson flipped so easily from pounding his chest and saying I didn't do anything wrong and I am not going to settle any of these.....to "where do I send the check or would you rather I Venmo you" .....as soon as he did, he sealed the deal on ever "clearing" his name....it either doesn't really mean that much to him.....or he really is guilty....probably a combination of both...

Watson was already overwhelming guilty in the court of public opinion.  Settling 20 cases did nothing to change that at all.  

There are many people/corporations that do the math and realize that settling is much more cost effective (figure out whatever "cost" you want to apply - could be money, could be ending the ordeal vs extending it, could be anything).  Watson was already guilty in the court of public opinion and nothing he did would change that.  It does not mean at all that he is admitting guilt in any way

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Watson was already overwhelming guilty in the court of public opinion.  Settling 20 cases did nothing to change that at all.  

There are many people/corporations that do the math and realize that settling is much more cost effective (figure out whatever "cost" you want to apply - could be money, could be ending the ordeal vs extending it, could be anything).  Watson was already guilty in the court of public opinion and nothing he did would change that.  It does not mean at all that he is admitting guilt in any way

100%

Just like the GJ failing to indict Isn’t proof of innocence or vindication, settlements of civil suits aren’t proof of guilt.

It can look bad, but if you look at his salary Vs the ~$2-3M the settlements cost (it was estimated at $100k per, IIRC) it’s pennies on the dollar, comparatively.

That said, it can be a bad look. But certainly not worse than the information that already came out about some of the allegations. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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?

No, this is not possible. The appeal accepts the facts as determined by the Disciplinary Officer.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

At this point it doesn't matter what is presented.

That's the main thing that matters.

 

[facook]

No, this is not possible. The appeal accepts the facts as determined by the Disciplinary Officer.

I thought I read if there was any appeal it's Goodell who hears it, and then his decision on length of suspension upon appeal is final.  Which *if true* would mean he could set the length he/the owners want.  Am I mistaken in this?

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Watson was already overwhelming guilty in the court of public opinion.  Settling 20 cases did nothing to change that at all.  

There are many people/corporations that do the math and realize that settling is much more cost effective (figure out whatever "cost" you want to apply - could be money, could be ending the ordeal vs extending it, could be anything).  Watson was already guilty in the court of public opinion and nothing he did would change that.  It does not mean at all that he is admitting guilt in any way

I agree with all of this except the last sentence....and thus the reason I said technically.....we all get the angle on settling that people/corporations do all the time, blah blah blah....but this isn't a I ran into your car in the parking lot and now you have been wearing a neck brace for three weeks even though you don't really need it situation......there is a difference

I guess I also disagree with the second to last sentence.....he could most definitely change the court of public opinion if he....I don't know....actually went to court....and proved his innocence.....that was always an option and its not fair to dismiss it as some "inconvenient" option when he could have chosen that route.....that was his choice....had he done that, at least this part of the court of public opinion (me) would have changed my mind....and I say that with complete honesty....but by settling he basically confirmed his guilt of some pretty creepy #### where he violated women....bury your head in the sand guy will die on the "it does not mean you are admitting guilt in any way" hill.....he could have fought them if he was innocent and his character meant more to him....he had/has the resources to do so....

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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....?

No. The settlement agreement almost certainly states that there is no admission of wrongdoing.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

No, this is not possible. The appeal accepts the facts as determined by the Disciplinary Officer.

after the results of the remaining civil cases that ARE going to trial are announced....can the league revisit and amend any suspension/fine....?....or is this a "you can't be tried for the same "kind" of crime twice.....I mean all the facts about some of the cases have not had the ability to be investigated yet....I mean the other 4 cases could have told the NFL to pound sand when they asked for details....

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

if he "didn't do anything wrong"....those cases would be so flimsy the top of the line lawyers that a multi million dollar QB could hire would be able to win those pretty easily no...?...

No. In a case with conflicting testimony, a jury could believe or disbelieve either party for all kinds of crazy reasons. (See, for example, this thread.)

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I thought I read if there was any appeal it's Goodell who hears it, and then his decision on length of suspension upon appeal is final.  Which *if true* would mean he could set the length he/the owners want.  Am I mistaken in this?

The question wasn't about whether the Commissioner can modify the Disciplinary Officer's punishment. The question was about whether he could do so based on evidence not presented at the hearing (and not judged to be true by the Disciplinary Officer). He can't do that.

 

[facook]

The question wasn't about whether the Commissioner can modify the Disciplinary Officer's punishment. The question was about whether he could do so based on evidence not presented at the hearing (and not judged to be true by the Disciplinary Officer). He can't do that.

Understood.  If DO issues 8 game suspension and either side appeals, Goodell has the power to say "Based on the evidence presented,a full season suspension is warranted" correct?  I mean, at that point who can question his decision?  I have always thought it would end up 8 games.  I guess I'm trying to wrap my mind around the idea that the person hearing ANY appeal can arbitrarily hand out a longer suspension and say it is justified based on the evidence presented.  

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

The question wasn't about whether the Commissioner can modify the Disciplinary Officer's punishment. The question was about whether he could do so based on evidence not presented at the hearing (and not judged to be true by the Disciplinary Officer). He can't do that.

While technically true, Goodell could, and probably has been influenced by everything going on in the same way society in general is.

Goodell is an attorney - and while everyone wants to believe they’d be impartial in such a position, no one is without bias.

I’m not saying Goodell will be influenced and let that cloud his judgement/penalty. I’m also not not saying that. 

 

[facook]

While technically true, Goodell could, and probably has been influenced by everything going on in the same way society in general is.

Goodell is an attorney - and while everyone wants to believe they’d be impartial in such a position, no one is without bias.

I’m not saying Goodell will be influenced and let that cloud his judgement/penalty. I’m also not not saying that. 

If the report is true that the league made it clear they were seeking a year-long suspension and anything less is declared by DO and an appeal follows it strains credulity to think Roger doesn't impose the full year.  

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Understood.  If DO issues 8 game suspension and either side appeals, Goodell has the power to say "Based on the evidence presented,a full season suspension is warranted" correct?  I mean, at that point who can question his decision?  I have always thought it would end up 8 games.  I guess I'm trying to wrap my mind around the idea that the person hearing ANY appeal can arbitrarily hand out a longer suspension and say it is justified based on the evidence presented.  

Technically, it wouldn't be based on the evidence presented; it would be based on the facts as determined by the Disciplinary Officer. So there may have been evidence presented of five assaults, but the Disciplinary Officer might find that only one assault occurred. Her report would say, "I find that Watson did one assault, and I think the appropriate punishment for one assault is a six-game suspension."

Goodell could then say, "My determination is that the appropriate punishment for one assault is seventeen games." But he can't base it on any other assaults besides the one assault found by the Disciplinary Officer.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If the report is true that the league made it clear they were seeking a year-long suspension and anything less is declared by DO and an appeal follows it strains credulity to think Roger doesn't impose the full year.  

I don't think it strains credulity. The league requested a full year. Watson requested zero games. Those requests are equally meaningless, IMO. Each side was basing their respective requests on the assumption that the facts would come out entirely in their own favor. Goodell's job isn't to maintain the league's (or Watson's) initial assumptions regardless of how the hearing went. His job, if there is an appeal, will be to determine the appropriate punishment based on the factual findings made by the Disciplinary Officer -- which may be quite different from either side's self-serving initial assumptions.

 

[facook]

I don't think it strains credulity. The league requested a full year. Watson requested zero games. Those requests are equally meaningless, IMO. Each side was basing their respective requests on the assumption that the facts would come out entirely in their own favor. Goodell's job isn't to maintain the league's (or Watson's) initial assumptions regardless of how the hearing went. His job, if there is an appeal, will be to determine the appropriate punishment based on the factual findings made by the Disciplinary Officer -- which may be quite different from either side's self-serving initial assumptions.

But at the end of the day he works for the owners.  If THEY truly want at least a year, he will be in a position to give it to them.  I am not saying that is the right thing, but I have a hard time seeing him not be influenced by his bosses if that is what they really desire.

ETA: Assuming there is any appeal.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

after the results of the remaining civil cases that ARE going to trial are announced....can the league revisit and amend any suspension/fine....?....or is this a "you can't be tried for the same "kind" of crime twice.....I mean all the facts about some of the cases have not had the ability to be investigated yet....I mean the other 4 cases could have told the NFL to pound sand when they asked for details....

I don't know if there's a specific rule about this in the CBA, but in both criminal and civil litigation, people waive claims by not bringing them when they should have. I don't think the league would bring a claim in the future that it could have brought now.

If Watson does something bad next week, he could face additional discipline for that. But I don't think he'd face additional discipline for anything that happened with the 66 (or whatever) women that the league could have talked to before deciding which claims to pursue in the current proceedings.

 

[-OZ-]

But at the end of the day he works for the owners.  If THEY truly want at least a year, he will be in a position to give it to them.  I am not saying that is the right thing, but I have a hard time seeing him not be influenced by his bosses if that is what they really desire.

Ultimately, Roger will do what he feels best. The owners know he’s been their best asset and has made them billions. I surely don’t know what he’d do, but a full season is not a lock. 

I agree with all of this except the last sentence....and thus the reason I said technically.....we all get the angle on settling that people/corporations do all the time, blah blah blah....but this isn't a I ran into your car in the parking lot and now you have been wearing a neck brace for three weeks even though you don't really need it situation......there is a difference

I guess I also disagree with the second to last sentence.....he could most definitely change the court of public opinion if he....I don't know....actually went to court....and proved his innocence.....that was always an option and its not fair to dismiss it as some "inconvenient" option when he could have chosen that route.....that was his choice....had he done that, at least this part of the court of public opinion (me) would have changed my mind....and I say that with complete honesty....but by settling he basically confirmed his guilt of some pretty creepy #### where he violated women....bury your head in the sand guy will die on the "it does not mean you are admitting guilt in any way" hill.....he could have fought them if he was innocent and his character meant more to him....he had/has the resources to do so....

we’ve been through this before without any changing of minds. I’ve personally convinced people to pay money (not their own) due to risk of being wrong in their assessment of what a judge will do. I agree that he’s probably creepy, that the women deserved better treatment. Settling has no impact on that belief. He wasn’t going to “prove his innocence” in a civil trial anyway. 

 

[facook]

But at the end of the day he works for the owners.  If THEY truly want at least a year, he will be in a position to give it to them.  I am not saying that is the right thing, but I have a hard time seeing him not be influenced by his bosses if that is what they really desire.

Ultimately, Roger will do what he feels best. The owners know he’s been their best asset and has made them billions. I surely don’t know what he’d do, but a full season is not a lock. 

I'll stick with my original prediction of 8 games.  League wanted full season, Watson wanted zip, both leaked on purpose.  DO rules 8 games, both sides move on and some of us do too.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

If the report is true that the league made it clear they were seeking a year-long suspension and anything less is declared by DO and an appeal follows it strains credulity to think Roger doesn't impose the full year.  

Exactly. 

 

[Gally]

I guess I also disagree with the second to last sentence.....he could most definitely change the court of public opinion if he....I don't know....actually went to court....and proved his innocence.....that was always an option and its not fair to dismiss it as some "inconvenient" option when he could have chosen that route.....

I don't think a civil trial could ever "prove his innocence".   This is a case on who do you believe more.  Barring some video surfacing that shows exactly what happened in every encounter it will always be a he said/she said situation and boils down to who you believe.  There is no PROVING anything.  

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

"The grand jury refused to indict, so that means the accusations against him are false."

"He settled a bunch of cases, so that means the accusations against him are true."

I don't know which of those two arguments is worse. I think probably the second one, but it's close.

 

[-OZ-]

"The grand jury refused to indict, so that means the accusations against him are false."

"He settled a bunch of cases, so that means the accusations against him are true."

I don't know which of those two arguments is worse. I think probably the second one, but it's close.

Taken completely at face value, the second is worse. (And I happen to think the accusations are largely true). What gets worse still is when people think criminal and league discipline are the same. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

But at the end of the day he works for the owners.  If THEY truly want at least a year, he will be in a position to give it to them.  I am not saying that is the right thing, but I have a hard time seeing him not be influenced by his bosses if that is what they really desire.

ETA: Assuming there is any appeal.

If Goodell thinks like that, he absolutely needs to recuse himself from hearing any appeal and appoint someone else to handle it who isn't so conflicted.

 

[facook]

If Goodell thinks like that, he absolutely needs to recuse himself from hearing any appeal and appoint someone else to handle it who isn't so conflicted.

I don't disagree; it reveals my level of cynicism of who he is as a person and leader.  I'm not a Patriots fan, but I'm convinced this is what he did in suspending Brady in the Deflate-gate joke of a situation. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

If Goodell thinks like that, he absolutely needs to recuse himself from hearing any appeal and appoint someone else to handle it who isn't so conflicted.

Hahahahaha

goodell? Recuse himself? 
 

ahahahahahahahaha

 

good one! 

 

[Beef Ravioli]

There has been lots of guessing of how many games suspension Watson will get, but I’m curious what you want him to get? What ruling satisfies you? 

 

[facook]

There has been lots of guessing of how many games suspension Watson will get, but I’m curious what you want him to get? What ruling satisfies you? 

I THINK he deserves the full season.  If he gets 8 games, I'm ok with that.  Enough gray area in the whole thing that it almost screams for compromise.

I THINK no matter what suspension he gets, NFLPA will make a stink of it and bring up issues that have been brought up in this thread regarding both creepy owners and race.  But they may not appeal, just to put it behind Deshaun.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

There has been lots of guessing of how many games suspension Watson will get, but I’m curious what you want him to get? What ruling satisfies you? 

Me? I have the 1st round pick of the team that has Watson in SF, and his other QBs aren’t great.

So for pure greed I hope he gets a year.

I also have Bell on a team I picked up, so I’d like 6-8 games in order for that connection to develop.

But FF aside, I think an 8 game suspension would probably be appropriate. 

 

[JoeKappBudGrant]

Taking the cynical approach, I think the owners will try to protect the "brand".  The DO says 8 games, but Roger moves it to 12.  The Browns won't make the playoffs.   Game 12 is in Houston, which could be ugly if Watson plays.  The Browns last three road games are Cincy, Washington and Pittsburgh.  Their fans have had to deal with Mixon, Synder and Big Ben indiscretions.  That might keep the protests at a minimum, and by next September there will be some new controversy for the pundits to sensationalize.

 

[TheWinz]

There has been lots of guessing of how many games suspension Watson will get, but I’m curious what you want him to get? What ruling satisfies you?

Either a lifetime ban and forfeit all money, or chemical castration with no missed games and he keeps every penny.  But hey... his body, his choice.  Deshaun gets to decide.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

There has been lots of guessing of how many games suspension Watson will get, but I’m curious what you want him to get? What ruling satisfies you? 

For me, I'd say probably somewhere between 0 games and 17 games, depending on exactly what he did or didn't do -- which I don't think any of us know right now. I'd be open to something longer than 17 games if he did something bad enough, but not otherwise.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

For me, I'd say probably somewhere between 0 games and 17 games, depending on exactly what he did or didn't do -- which I don't think any of us know right now. I'd be open to something longer than 17 games if he did something bad enough, but not otherwise.

I like how you plant a flag in the ground and stand by it. It’s for this sort of decisive rationale that I’ve come to respect, and, over time, love you.  

 

[facook]

Taking the cynical approach, I think the owners will try to protect the "brand".  The DO says 8 games, but Roger moves it to 12.  The Browns won't make the playoffs.   Game 12 is in Houston, which could be ugly if Watson plays.  The Browns last three road games are Cincy, Washington and Pittsburgh.  Their fans have had to deal with Mixon, Synder and Big Ben indiscretions.  That might keep the protests at a minimum, and by next September there will be some new controversy for the pundits to sensationalize.

Yeah, there are NEVER protests in Washington, D.C.   

 

[BigJim®]

I don't think it strains credulity. The league requested a full year. Watson requested zero games. Those requests are equally meaningless, IMO. Each side was basing their respective requests on the assumption that the facts would come out entirely in their own favor. Goodell's job isn't to maintain the league's (or Watson's) initial assumptions regardless of how the hearing went. His job, if there is an appeal, will be to determine the appropriate punishment based on the factual findings made by the Disciplinary Officer -- which may be quite different from either side's self-serving initial assumptions.

Well, and let's be honest about public statements... and what the NFL already gained from a PR perspective advocating for an indefinite suspension. It would not strain credulity for the NFL to push for severe punishment publicly - only to fall back on "We disagree, but respect the ruling derived from the CBA process." Suspect there would be significant fall out if Goodell subverts an agreed upon method for punishment determination.... and the NFL gains very little when its public posture probably absolved it to a large extent.   

 

[Bracie Smathers]

If the report is true that the league made it clear they were seeking a year-long suspension and anything less is declared by DO and an appeal follows it strains credulity to think Roger doesn't impose the full year.  

I don't think it strains credulity. The league requested a full year. Watson requested zero games. Those requests are equally meaningless

Robinson was a federal judge and believes in due process.

Who is Sue L. Robinson, the retired federal judge hearing the Deshaun Watson disciplinary case?

...Robinson has authored dozens of legal opinions and presided over more than 100 trials and 1,500 lawsuits in such cases.

...Robinson said that she was committed to due process, a constitutional right that requires accused parties receive a chance to defend themselves against claims before any punishment is doled out.

“I take my responsibilities as a trial judge seriously, as do my colleagues,” she said. “We have taken an oath to give every party in our court due process, regardless who the party is. Ensuring due process means giving every party a fair and reasonable opportunity to demonstrate the merits of its allegations.”

----------------------

If Robinson disregards the evidence and only bases her decision on Watson or the league, then her decision strains credibility.

If Goodell doesn't abide by the decision of Robinson, his final ruling strains credibility.

FWIW, it's been reported numerous times that the league is pushing for an indefinite suspension while at the same time it has been reported they won't dispute Robinson ruling if she hands down a 6-8 game suspension.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rob Maaddi@RobMaaddi

Jun 28

I'm told the NFL inisted on an indefinite suspension while Deshaun Watson's legal team argued there's no basis for that punishment. The hearing will continue on Wednesday in Delaware and Watson is expected to be present for the duration. Story upcoming. #NFL #Browns

Rob Maaddi@RobMaaddi

More: I'm also told the NFL, despite insisting on indefinite suspension, wants to avoid the appeals process - source said "a terrible situation for everyone involved" - so league is more likely to abide by Sue Robinson's ruling IF she came back with 6-8 games.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

There has been lots of guessing of how many games suspension Watson will get, but I’m curious what you want him to get? What ruling satisfies you? 

I’m fine with whatever Robinson determines.  But if it goes back to Goodell, and he changes whatever she decides that’s a problem for me.

NFLPA made modifying the PCP process during the last CBA a priority in large part because of the unilateral power Goodell wielded.

 

[daveR]

For me, I'd say probably somewhere between 0 games and 17 games, depending on exactly what he did or didn't do -- which I don't think any of us know right now. I'd be open to something longer than 17 games if he did something bad enough, but not otherwise.

Therein lies the rub.  Court of public opinion has convicted him of vile crimes.  Said crimes demand significant punishment.  A year-long suspension really isn't enough, but the PCP says 6 game baseline. 

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Therein lies the rub. 

and tug

 

[steelcityman]

6-8-10 games would be a PR nightmare for the NFL.   They would take a beating across the planet.  They'll still make billions, so I dont think they care.   Might as well let him play week 1, cause 6 games is meaningless.