QB Deshaun Watson, CLE (5 Viewers)

[Maurile Tremblay]

As things stand with his current contract,   Watson would lose $1M in salary if he accepted a suspension on the first year of his deal but $46M in salary if he had to serve his suspension for the second year of his contract.

They're both the same. If he's suspended a whole season and his contract is tolled during that season, he gets $1 million in the first season that he actually plays (whether that's 2022 or 2023) and $46 million in the second season that he actually plays (whether that's 2023 or 2024) and he becomes a free agent in 2028 after he actually plays five seasons.

He gains nothing by sitting in 2022 and playing in 2023 versus doing the reverse. What he gains by suing and playing in 2022 is the chance that he won't have to sit a full season, so he'll become a free agent in 2027 instead of 2028.

 

[Anarchy99]

They're both the same. If he's suspended a whole season and his contract is tolled during that season, he gets $1 million in the first season that he actually plays (whether that's 2022 or 2023) and $46 million in the second season that he actually plays (whether that's 2023 or 2024) and he becomes a free agent in 2028 after he actually plays five seasons.

He gains nothing by sitting in 2022 and playing in 2023 versus doing the reverse. What he gains by suing and playing in 2022 is the chance that he won't have to sit a full season, so he'll become a free agent in 2027 instead of 2028.

But that’s not remotely close to what I posted. Yes, what you posted is accurate PROVIDED WATSON IS SUSPENDED AND DOESN’T PLAY. I posted about what happens if Watson is suspended BUT FIGHTS IT IN COURT. 

He can’t play and have his contract toll. If he serves a full year suspension, his contract would toll by a year from that point in his contract. If he already played Year 1, he would have already been paid for Year 1 ($1M).

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

But that’s not remotely close to what I posted. Yes, what you posted is accurate PROVIDED WATSON IS SUSPENDED AND DOESN’T PLAY. I posted about what happens if Watson is suspended BUT FIGHTS IT IN COURT. 

He can’t play and have his contract toll. If he serves a full year suspension, his contract would toll by a year from that point in his contract. If he already played Year 1, he would have already been paid for Year 1 ($1M).

I'll list it all out for clarity.

Assume he's suspended for one year and doesn't fight it. In that case, he gets:

2022: $0. (Contract tolls, meaning it's not an accrued season.)

2023: $1 million. (Year 1.)

2024: $46 million. (Year 2.)

2025: $46 million. (Year 3.)

2026: $46 million. (Year 4.)

2027: $46 million. (Year 5.)

Now assume he is suspended for a year but fights it in court and eventually loses, but gets an injunction allowing him to play in 2022 while the litigation is pending, so he sits out 2023 instead. In that case, he gets:

2022: $1 million. (Year 1.)

2023: $0. (Contract tolls.)

2024: $46 million. (Year 2.)

2025: $46 million. (Year 3.)

2026: $46 million. (Year 4.)

2027: $46 million. (Year 5.)

Those two scenarios are the same either way.

Now assume he's suspended for a year, sues and wins so that he doesn't sit out a year. He plays in 2022 while the litigation is pending. In that case, he gets:

2022: $1 million. (Year 1.)

2023: $46 million (or part thereof if suspended for part of season). (Year 2.)

2024: $46 million. (Year 3.)

2025: $46 million. (Year 4.)

2026: $46 million. (Year 5.)

2027: $70 million or whatever as a free agent. (Year 1 of next contract.)

Suing and losing is the same as not suing, but suing and winning is better by $70 million or whatever, so it's worth a shot.

 

[Anarchy99]

I'll list it all out for clarity.

Assume he's suspended for one year and doesn't fight it. In that case, he gets:

2022: $0.

2023: $1 million.

2024: $46 million.

2025: $46 million.

2026: $46 million.

2027: $46 million.

Now assume he is suspended for a year but fights it in court and eventually loses, but gets an injunction allowing him to play in 2022 while the litigation is pending, so he sits out 2023 instead. In that case, he gets:

2022: $1 million.

2023: $0.

2024: $46 million.

2025: $46 million.

2026: $46 million.

2027: $46 million.

Those two scenarios are the same either way.

Now assume he's suspended for a year, sues and wins so that he doesn't sit out a year. He plays in 2022 while the litigation is pending. In that case, he gets:

2022: $1 million.

2023: $46 million (or part thereof if suspended for part of season).

2024: $46 million.

2025: $46 million.

2026: $46 million.

2027: $70 million or whatever as a free agent.

Suing and losing is the same as not suing, but suing and winning is better by $70 million or whatever, so it's worth a shot.

I get what you are saying. Watson would still get all his money eventually. 

Players suspended for a full season would lose no salary whatsoever,  which totally defeats the purpose of suspending a player. Doesn’t make much sense to have Watson have to lose $46M  in salary when ultimately he will get it all back anyway. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I get what you are saying. Watson would still get all his money eventually. 

Players suspended for a full season would lose no salary whatsoever,  which totally defeats the purpose of suspending a player. Doesn’t make much sense to have Watson have to lose $46M  in salary when ultimately he will get it all back anyway. 

If he's suspended for a full season, he gets his money under his current contract in six years rather than five years. That's a huge penalty because it pushes back his next contract (when there will presumably be a higher salary cap) by a year. That equates to a penalty of $70 million, or whatever he'd otherwise be able to make in 2027 as a free agent.

 

[apalmer]

I'll list it all out for clarity.

Assume he's suspended for one year and doesn't fight it. In that case, he gets:

2022: $0. (Contract tolls, meaning it's not an accrued season.)

2023: $1 million. (Year 1.)

2024: $46 million. (Year 2.)

2025: $46 million. (Year 3.)

2026: $46 million. (Year 4.)

2027: $46 million. (Year 5.)

Now assume he is suspended for a year but fights it in court and eventually loses, but gets an injunction allowing him to play in 2022 while the litigation is pending, so he sits out 2023 instead. In that case, he gets:

2022: $1 million. (Year 1.)

2023: $0. (Contract tolls.)

2024: $46 million. (Year 2.)

2025: $46 million. (Year 3.)

2026: $46 million. (Year 4.)

2027: $46 million. (Year 5.)

Those two scenarios are the same either way.

Now assume he's suspended for a year, sues and wins so that he doesn't sit out a year. He plays in 2022 while the litigation is pending. In that case, he gets:

2022: $1 million. (Year 1.)

2023: $46 million (or part thereof if suspended for part of season). (Year 2.)

2024: $46 million. (Year 3.)

2025: $46 million. (Year 4.)

2026: $46 million. (Year 5.)

2027: $70 million or whatever as a free agent. (Year 1 of next contract.)

Suing and losing is the same as not suing, but suing and winning is better by $70 million or whatever, so it's worth a shot.

The bolded is the important part IMO.  If he is suspended for a year and gets an injunction, he gets to play 2022 for $1 million.  If he wins and gets it reduced to 4 games, he serves that suspension in 2023, as you indicated.  But, he's scheduled to make about $2.7 million per game in 2023. So that "$46 million (or part thereof if suspended for part of season)" generates him about $10 million less for the season.

 

[apalmer]

If he's suspended for a full season, he gets his money under his current contract in six years rather than five years. That's a huge penalty because it pushes back his next contract (when there will presumably be a higher salary cap) by a year. That equates to a penalty of $70 million, or whatever he'd otherwise be able to make in 2027 as a free agent.

So what happens if he's suspended for 15 games instead of a full season? No tolling?

 

[Anarchy99]

So what happens if he's suspended for 15 games instead of a full season? No tolling?

It appears contracts only toll for suspensions lasting a whole season.

 

[daveR]

whatever happened last season as far as him "not playing"....means diddly sqaut...it has nothing to do with what is happening now.....and what happens moving forward....so can we stop with that...?.....the decisions made about him playing or not playing last year "as far as we know", has nothing to do with the massage stuff...it was "contract" stuff...that is old news....history...they aren't going to come out and say he didn't play last year because of the massage stuff....it going to be about the contract (even if it wasn't)....

like it or not....the settlements lead you to the truth.....you can bury your head in the sand if you want....like Robinson is "supposed to do"....

 

[daveR]

whatever happened last season as far as him "not playing"....means diddly sqaut...it has nothing to do with what is happening now.....and what happens moving forward....so can we stop with that...?.....the decisions made about him playing or not playing last year "as far as we know", has nothing to do with the massage stuff...it was "contract" stuff...that is old news....history...they aren't going to come out and say he didn't play last year because of the massage stuff....it going to be about the contract (even if it wasn't)....

like it or not....the settlements lead you to the truth.....you can bury your head in the sand if you want....like Robinson is "supposed to do"....

Agreed (about last season).  Except, I bet they work 2021 into the rhetoric to put a spin on the minimal nature of the eventual outcome.

Regarding settlements, it would surprise me if that inevitability wasn't built into his new contract.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So what happens if he's suspended for 15 games instead of a full season? No tolling?

Fifteen games is effectively a full season. Players aren't allowed to report to the team (i.e., go on full-pay status) with fewer than six games remaining in a given season, so an 11-game suspension is the longest suspension possible short of a full season.

But if he's suspended 11 games, no tolling.

 

[dhockster]

With training camps opening next week, I will be very surprised if we don't hear what the suspension (if any) is tomorrow. The arbitrator has had enough time to make a decision, and in fairness to the Browns, they need to make decisions on their roster if there is a significant suspension.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

With training camps opening next week, I will be very surprised if we don't hear what the suspension (if any) is tomorrow. The arbitrator has had enough time to make a decision, and in fairness to the Browns, they need to make decisions on their roster if there is a significant suspension.

not real sure many people including the NFL offices are real concerned about "what would be fair to the Browns".....they knew what they were getting into....

 

[Soulfly3]

the nfl wants him on the field. they can dress up and "leak" as much BS as they want about a 1yr suspenion/not appealing 6 to 8 games etc... they want all their best players on the field.

you think the nfl wants brisket v baker week 1? do you really?

 

[Soulfly3]

Link to Podcast/Tweet

According to these fellas (attorneys), Roger lacked a lot of transparancy re: watson and the commish exempt list (among other things).

Apparently Roger was aware he couldn't use the exempt list as there was no evidence of violence/coercion from the get-go. 

No idea ahow true it is, but makes some sense considering it was never used, when it almost seemed like a given.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

 Browns training camp will open with a closed practice on July 27.

Hopefully we get Robinson's decision sometime today and I'm guessing her decision will be unacceptable for many no matter what her ruling is.

 

[TheWinz]

 Browns training camp will open with a closed practice on July 27.

Hopefully we get Robinson's decision sometime today and I'm guessing her decision will be unacceptable for many no matter what her ruling is.

I think he is a sick sick man who should get a lifetime ban.  If he plays this year, you know what I am gonna do?  Probably draft him and hope he brings me a trophy.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

If he's suspended for a full season, he gets his money under his current contract in six years rather than five years. That's a huge penalty because it pushes back his next contract (when there will presumably be a higher salary cap) by a year. That equates to a penalty of $70 million, or whatever he'd otherwise be able to make in 2027 as a free agent.

So his contract tolls and the team has no relief that they could seek under his contract if he is suspended?  Is that unique to the contract that was negotiated here, and likely why he went to the Browns?

 

[daveR]

the nfl wants him on the field. they can dress up and "leak" as much BS as they want about a 1yr suspenion/not appealing 6 to 8 games etc... they want all their best players on the field.

you think the nfl wants brisket v baker week 1? do you really?

It's impossible to put a positive spin on this.  It'll have to die off over time.  As such, I suppose a humdrum game against a so-so opponent is a good way to start.  A Watson vs Baker hyped game isn't. The spin might say something along the lines of, "He has settled his differences with the people in his past and is working with a good group of educators to advise other young men coming into the league."  Or other such baloney.  I doubt they want a spotlight on him.

 

[GroveDiesel]

the nfl wants him on the field. they can dress up and "leak" as much BS as they want about a 1yr suspenion/not appealing 6 to 8 games etc... they want all their best players on the field.

you think the nfl wants brisket v baker week 1? do you really?

Sure, just like the NFL went out of their way to make sure that Ray Rice, Josh Gordon, Adrian Peterson, Michael Vick, Ben Roethlisberger, and Ezekiel Elliott got on the field as quickly as possible. 

If history is any indication, it’s pretty clear that the NFL will initially try to do nothing and cover it up, but when public sentiment becomes overwhelming, they try to bring down the hammer as much as possible.

 

[Soulfly3]

@ProFootballTalk

NFLPA intends to make double standard for players and owners a cornerstone of the defense against every effort by the league to suspend a player under the Personal Conduct Policy.

Link

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

@ProFootballTalk

NFLPA intends to make double standard for players and owners a cornerstone of the defense against every effort by the league to suspend a player under the Personal Conduct Policy.

Link

That makes zero sense.  One group has collectively bargained rights and are the employee/product on the field.  From a brand value perspective, people care very little about owner conduct, as opposed to player.  That is the bottom line and is certainly allowable.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

I resolve to accept Judge Robinson's decision, whatever it is. I was not present at the arbitration hearings, have not seen, heard, nor read the evidence that was submitted nor have I heard the arguments that were made. I have not read the briefs and am not fully knowledgeable as to the legal standard to be applied. I realize that media reports about grand juries and civil lawsuits regarding Watson and his accusers are irrelevant to the NFL arbitration proceeding. I defer to Judge Robinson's knowledge and expertise and have no basis to form a contrary opinion.

Who's with me?

 

[Soulfly3]

That makes zero sense.  One group has collectively bargained rights and are the employee/product on the field.  From a brand value perspective, people care very little about owner conduct, as opposed to player.  That is the bottom line and is certainly allowable.

Correct me if Im wrong, as I might be. But doesnt the PCP include BOTH owners and players? Hence the basis of the argument 

Who's with me?

Same. Whatever she decides, it's probably the right call. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I resolve to accept Judge Robinson's decision, whatever it is. I was not present at the arbitration hearings, have not seen, heard, nor read the evidence that was submitted nor have I heard the arguments that were made. I have not read the briefs and am not fully knowledgeable as to the legal standard to be applied. I realize that media reports about grand juries and civil lawsuits regarding Watson and his accusers are irrelevant to the NFL arbitration proceeding. I defer to Judge Robinson's knowledge and expertise and have no basis to form a contrary opinion.

Who's with me?

In.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So his contract tolls and the team has no relief that they could seek under his contract if he is suspended?  Is that unique to the contract that was negotiated here, and likely why he went to the Browns?

The team's relief is that it doesn't pay him anything during the suspension, and if the contract is tolled, it keeps him under contract for an extra year before he hits free agency. What other relief should it get?

The unusual aspect of the contract is that it is fully guaranteed, but that's the deal the Browns made with him.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Correct me if Im wrong, as I might be. But doesnt the PCP include BOTH owners and players? Hence the basis of the argument 

Same. Whatever she decides, it's probably the right call. 

I am not sure on that one.  But one group is under a CBA that governs their employment terms and the other is a separate group entirely.  

And of course I am in for whatever the arbitrator's decision is.  That is how this stuff works.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

The team's relief is that it doesn't pay him anything during the suspension, and it keeps him under contract for an extra year before he hits free agency. What other relief should it get?

The unusual part of the contract is that it is fully guaranteed, but that's the deal the Browns made with him.

Usually they can recover portions of the signing bonus, but it sounds like the nature of the contract the Browns gave to Watson allows him to get his entire proceeds.  Which is why he suddenly was OK with going to the Browns seemingly out of nowhere.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I resolve to accept Judge Robinson's decision, whatever it is. I was not present at the arbitration hearings, have not seen, heard, nor read the evidence that was submitted nor have I heard the arguments that were made. I have not read the briefs and am not fully knowledgeable as to the legal standard to be applied. I realize that media reports about grand juries and civil lawsuits regarding Watson and his accusers are irrelevant to the NFL arbitration proceeding. I defer to Judge Robinson's knowledge and expertise and have no basis to form a contrary opinion.

Who's with me?

I reserve the right to my opinion about it. Maybe I’ll agree or disagree with her.  

As for acceptance of her decision, she is going to rule, and it is what it is. Not accepting her decision isn’t really an option here. That’s up to Goodell & then it will be up to team Watson. 

I’m betting they are not taking this pledge. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Usually they can recover portions of the signing bonus, but it sounds like the nature of the contract the Browns gave to Watson allows him to get his entire proceeds.  Which is why he suddenly was OK with going to the Browns seemingly out of nowhere.

That's more complicated. A player always forfeits his base salary during a suspension, but his signing bonus is a case-by-case basis depending on the contract. If a player is suspended for part of a season, he will often forfeit a prorated portion of the signing bonus that was allocated to that season under the cap. But Watson's contract reportedly contains no forfeiture relating to the massage allegations.

If a player is suspended for a full season and his contract tolls, though, I don't think his signing bonus would be affected. The idea behind recapturing part of the signing bonus is that it was based on playing X games under the contract, and if he's suspended for part of a season, he's playing fewer than x games and should give back part of the signing bonus to reflect that. But if he's suspended for a full season and his contract is tolled, he's still playing all X games, so his signing bonus would be unaffected.

 

[Buckna]

I reserve the right to my opinion about it. Maybe I’ll agree or disagree with her.  

As for acceptance of her decision, she is going to rule, and it is what it is. Not accepting her decision isn’t really an option here. That’s up to Goodell & then it will be up to team Watson. 

I’m betting they are not taking this pledge. 

I agree, the NFL has had high profile suspensions in the past and many of us have differing opinions on whether they bungled those or not (Brady, Rothlisberger, Zeke, Ray Rice, Ridley, etc.) Why should this be any different?

 

[Stinkin Ref]

the nfl wants him on the field. they can dress up and "leak" as much BS as they want about a 1yr suspenion/not appealing 6 to 8 games etc... they want all their best players on the field.

you think the nfl wants brisket v baker week 1? do you really?

as much as they want good players on the field.....they also want to protect the image of the shield.....Watson's transgressions aren't something you just sweep under the rug....it's pretty obvious this situation is different than many others....this isn't using a PED or something.....

 

[CletiusMaximus]

I reserve the right to my opinion about it. Maybe I’ll agree or disagree with her.  

As for acceptance of her decision, she is going to rule, and it is what it is. Not accepting her decision isn’t really an option here. That’s up to Goodell & then it will be up to team Watson. 

I’m betting they are not taking this pledge. 

Of course the NFL is not taking my pledge. They are one of the litigants - a direct participant in the proceedings. The NFL advocated for a certain outcome and has a right to disagree with any other outcome. You and I have no reasonable basis to disagree with Judge Robinson because we are both ignorant as to the arbitration proceeding, which was conducted in private.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

You and I have no reasonable basis to disagree with Judge Robinson because we are both ignorant as to the arbitration proceeding, which was conducted in private.

nah. We all have our takes. It’s 2022. Being ignorant of the facts in no way negates our right to an opinion about it.  

 

[Stinkin Ref]

I resolve to accept Judge Robinson's decision, whatever it is. I was not present at the arbitration hearings, have not seen, heard, nor read the evidence that was submitted nor have I heard the arguments that were made. I have not read the briefs and am not fully knowledgeable as to the legal standard to be applied. I realize that media reports about grand juries and civil lawsuits regarding Watson and his accusers are irrelevant to the NFL arbitration proceeding. I defer to Judge Robinson's knowledge and expertise and have no basis to form a contrary opinion.

Who's with me?

I'm with you on all of this....except for the fact that Robinson doesn't have to worry about "protecting the shield".....that is not her job.....if she comes out with say a 2 game recommendation.....no I'm not ok with that.....and I would be ok with the next step of Roger being able to increase it based on some of things not presented to Robinson and what she "wasn't supposed to base her decision on" or take into account.....

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I'm with you on all of this....except for the fact that Robinson doesn't have to worry about "protecting the shield".....that is not her job.....if she comes out with say a 2 game recommendation.....no I'm not ok with that.....and I would be ok with the next step of Roger being able to increase it based on some of things not presented to Robinson and what she "wasn't supposed to base her decision on" or take into account.....

Agree with this. Our acceptance means more than just Judge Robinson.

if we’re to take this zen approach, then we must also accept Goodell’s increase of the penalty, and further, team Watson’s lawsuit, and anything that comes from there (which, to be fair, could work out even worse for team Watson financially, and in terms of what damning evidence/info comes out in discovery).

Gotta take the good with the bad if we are in zen mode.  

 

[Soulfly3]

if she comes out with say a 2 game recommendation.....no I'm not ok with that.....

You wouldn't be ok w a female judge, who was privy to ALL the facts, deciding 2 games is sufficient?

.... Despite having no facts of your own?

Odd. To each their own, but odd. 

If she says full season, Id agree, based on knowing she had all the facts. Even tho i sit on the polar end now. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Let's say a publicly traded stock is priced at $51 per share.

Do you think that's too low, too high, or about right?

Based on the information I just gave you, do you have a hot take about it?

Any take you have is going to be kind of dumb, right? Because I've told you nothing about the company in question -- its assets, its earnings forecasts, etc.

That's also precisely how much you know about what evidence was presented at the hearing. Second-guessing Robinson about Watson's appropriate punishment based on facts you're totally unaware of is no different from second-guessing the stock price of a company you know nothing about.

Stop thinking that whatever you read on Twitter counts for anything. It doesn't. All that counts is what happened at the hearing, and none of us has reliable information about that. That means none of us has any reasonable basis for second-guessing whatever Robinson decides.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

You wouldn't be ok w a female judge,

Why does it matter that she’s female? 

who was privy to ALL the facts,

we don’t know this to be true. She had a body of information to work with from the 4 cases she’s highlighted. We don’t know if she has “ALL the facts”.

We don’t know what we don’t know. We don’t know what judge Robinson knows or doesn’t know. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Let's say a publicly traded stock is priced at $51 per share.

Do you think that's too low, too high, or about right?

Do you have a hot take about it?

Any take you have is going to be kind of dumb, right? Because you know nothing about the company in question -- its assets, its earnings forecasts, etc.

That's also precisely how much you know about what evidence was presented at the hearing. Second-guessing Robinson about Watson's appropriate punishment based on facts you're totally unaware of is no different from second-guessing the stock price of a company you know nothing about.

Stop thinking that whatever you read about on Twitter counts for anything. It doesn't. All that counts is what happened at the hearing, and none of us has reliable information about that. That means none of us has any reasonable basis for second-guessing whatever Robinson decides.

No, but based on what we do know, I can safely say that if I had a daughter who was a sports medicine physical therapist who did massage, I would not want my daughter anywhere near Deshaun Watson, because he seems, at best, to be a monumentally creepy dude. 
 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

No, but based on what we do know, I can safely say that if I had a daughter who was a sports medicine physical therapist who did massage, I would not want my daughter anywhere near Deshaun Watson, because he seems, at best, to be a monumentally creepy dude. 

Robinson is not going to make a factual finding that Watson is not a monumentally creepy dude, so your belief about that won't constitute second-guessing her.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

who was privy to ALL the facts,

we don’t know this to be true. She had a body of information to work with from the 4 cases she’s highlighted. We don’t know if she has “ALL the facts”.

She is privy to all the admissible facts presented to her at the hearing, which, for purposes of her decision, is ALL the facts.

 

[brewer]

I really don't care if he is banned forever or isn't suspended for 1 practice, just make a decision already.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

To be clear, I'm not arguing against the following position:

"Based on everything I've read on Twitter or heard from Tony Buzbee or Mike Florio, I believe that Watson did a bunch of awful things that were probably illegal. Given what I think he did, I believe he should be suspended for a full season. But Robinson suspended him for only two games. Therefore, I don't think justice was done."

That's a perfectly fine take, IMO. But it's not second-guessing Robinson. It's vaguely second-guessing the overall NFL disciplinary system. It's consistent with the idea that, working within the constraints of that system, Robinson's decision was exactly right.

 

[Soulfly3]

She is privy to all the admissible facts presented to her at the hearing, which, for purposes of her decision, is ALL the facts.

ding ding ding. 

and if the nfl presents a bunch of hot garbage, her take should logically be that the rest of the 20+ cases he settled - that weren't presented - are also hot trash. since folks seem to think it's "human nature" to take all those other cases into account.

the nfl should be bringing the best forward. not the worst

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

and if the nfl presents a bunch of hot garbage, her take should logically be that the rest of the 20+ cases he settled - that weren't presented - are also hot trash. since folks seem to think it's "human nature" to take all those other cases into account.

She's definitely not going to comment on the merits of any of the civil cases.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

She is privy to all the admissible facts presented to her at the hearing, which, for purposes of her decision, is ALL the facts.

Which still might not be “ALL the facts.” 

your qualifier there is exactly my point.

 

[Soulfly3]

She's definitely not going to comment on the merits of any of the civil cases.

Of course she isn't. But that's what ppl seem to think she can't possibly do, as a human being - avoid all those other cases

 

[Stinkin Ref]

while admitting we don't know what was presented to Robinson.....we have to assume it did not include anything from the 20 cases Watson settled or the 30 cases the Texans settled....it has been said many times in here that she isn't supposed to take that into account "if not presented to her"......

so based on that....I think we can reasonably agree that what Robinson was presented did not include "ALL" or "everything" the NFL knows....(we have heard it only includes 4-5)....Robinson may choose and is expected not to include that other "information/facts"....which includes settling 20 previous cases of the same type of accusations.....but that doesn't mean the NFL will not include it as part of their own independent investigation which is what they will use to base their determination of the final outcome....meaning possibly increasing the amount of time (or decreasing I guess, which I doubt they would ever do).....the NFL may not have presented ALL they know.....and they will make a decision on ALL they know....

in many ways....what Robinson decides is really just a baseline....or in fantasy terms....the "floor"......it is my understanding Rog and the NFL could decide to blow the "ceiling" off the mf'ing house if they choose....

 

[Beef Ravioli]

I resolve to accept Judge Robinson's decision, whatever it is. I was not present at the arbitration hearings, have not seen, heard, nor read the evidence that was submitted nor have I heard the arguments that were made. I have not read the briefs and am not fully knowledgeable as to the legal standard to be applied. I realize that media reports about grand juries and civil lawsuits regarding Watson and his accusers are irrelevant to the NFL arbitration proceeding. I defer to Judge Robinson's knowledge and expertise and have no basis to form a contrary opinion.

Who's with me?

In!