QB Deshaun Watson, CLE (4 Viewers)

[bro1ncos]

My personal take on the situation is that there was no coercion, no threats, and no use of physical force.  I am aware that the civil suits say there was a fear of power by the MTs.  This, in my eyes, does not constitute malfeasance.  To be fair, I admit that the facts are unavailable to me and my opinion is based on leaks.  

Agreed

Add to it that his employer (NFL) made it clear and obvious that settling these civil lawsuits that things would be easier for him and his innocence or guilt were somewhat irrelevant.

They did this when referring to his potential trade to Miami last season. One of potentially many reasons he settled many of those cases even though proclaiming his innocence.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

I think that most of the people that have planted their flag (in this Watson situation) on the "settling doesn't mean your guilty" hill.... don't even truly believe it themselves....

 

[bro1ncos]

I think that most of the people that have planted their flag (in this Watson situation) on the "settling doesn't mean your guilty" hill.... don't even truly believe it themselves....

Agree with this too. 

I'm in the he did something despicable camp, but it is being over exaggerated by many and downplayed by some.

 

[-OZ-]

I think that most of the people that have planted their flag (in this Watson situation) on the "settling doesn't mean your guilty" hill.... don't even truly believe it themselves....

I only speak from my own professional experience. Very different client of course, but the reasons stay the same. Of course I believe that settling doesn’t necessarily mean he’s guilty. While also believing he did some stupid stuff. 

Agree with this too. 

I'm in the he did something despicable camp, but it is being over exaggerated by many and downplayed by some.

How dare you be reasonable.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If settling means he's guilty, the grand jury's refusal to indict means he's innocent.

(Neither one means either of those things.)

 

[Gally]

I think that most of the people that have planted their flag (in this Watson situation) on the "settling doesn't mean your guilty" hill.... don't even truly believe it themselves....

I can believe wholeheartedly that settling doesn't mean your guilty and still think Watson did questionable things.   

ETA:  I think there can be a lot of grey area in that "questionable" things situation.  Enough where Watson wasn't being forceful but still not appropriate and enough where the masseuse side felt uncomfortable/violated.  

 

[Soulfly3]

Ok decision is coming down soon (logically, i have no info)

FINAL CALLS IN NOW. 

Im going with 6 games at 80% and 0 games at 20% now. Something in my tummy says 0 might happen, despite just 2 weeks saying less than 1% chance. 

 

[Stinkin Ref]

I can believe wholeheartedly that settling doesn't mean your guilty and still think Watson did questionable things.   

right....I am specifically making that comment with regard to Watson and his "situation"...

in general I fully realize innocent people "settle" cases or take plea agreements all the time for a variety of reasons....

curious Gally....in all honesty....with regard to Watson specifically..... what does him settling those 20 cases mean to you....anything?

 

[Gally]

right....I am specifically making that comment with regard to Watson and his "situation"...

in general I fully realize innocent people "settle" cases or take plea agreements all the time for a variety of reasons....

curious Gally....in all honesty....with regard to Watson specifically..... what does him settling those 20 cases mean to you....anything?

It means absolutely nothing to me.  Doesn't change my view at all.  

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Ok decision is coming down soon (logically, i have no info)

FINAL CALLS IN NOW. 

Im going with 6 games at 80% and 0 games at 20% now. Something in my tummy says 0 might happen, despite just 2 weeks saying less than 1% chance. 

as far as Robinson's recommendation.....or what it actually ends up being after Rog and the NFL make possible adjustments....?

 

[Stinkin Ref]

It means absolutely nothing to me.  Doesn't change my view at all.  

what is your view....?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

It means absolutely nothing to me.  Doesn't change my view at all.  

I agree. The settlements in and of themselves mean precisely nothing.

 

[bro1ncos]

Ok decision is coming down soon (logically, i have no info)

FINAL CALLS IN NOW. 

Im going with 6 games at 80% and 0 games at 20% now. Something in my tummy says 0 might happen, despite just 2 weeks saying less than 1% chance. 

I've said 6-8 games all along and I will stick to that. Over 8 games I'm probably in the 20% area. Less than 6 probably closer to 40%.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

I admire the people in here that can stand back and honestly say that him settling 20 cases means absolutely nothing to them....I don't have those type of skills....

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Here's why the settlements in and of themselves can't mean anything: they provide no new information about the strength of the claims.

We don't know whether the women received a dime. Maybe they filed dismissals in return for a waiver of costs. That would indicate that their claims were extremely weak. If we learned that they settled for a waiver of costs, we could adjust our estimate of Watson's guilt downward.

Or maybe they received $1 million each. That would indicate that their claims had some real heft. If we learned that they settled for $1 million each, we could adjust our estimate of Watson's guilt upward.

But just knowing that they settled doesn't give us any clue about which of those scenarios is more likely. It's probably somewhere in between, but the settlement doesn't give us any information about that. Whatever we guess that the terms of the settlements might have been, we're basing that guess on information we already had independent of the fact of the settlements.

Since the settlements themselves provide no new information about the strength of the claims, it's logically stupid to change our beliefs about the strength of the claims based on the fact that they settled.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If you already thought Watson was guilty, you're going to think he settled because he's guilty.

If you already thought the accusations against him were made up out of whole cloth, you're going to think the women settled because their claims were meritless.

Anything that just reaffirms whatever you already thought doesn't actually reaffirm anything at all. It's entirely meaningless.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Here's why the settlements in and of themselves can't mean anything: they provide no new information about the strength of the claims.

We don't know whether the women received a dime. Maybe they filed dismissals in return for a waiver of costs. That would indicate that their claims were extremely weak. If we learned that they settled for a waiver of costs, we could adjust our estimate of Watson's guilt downward.

Or maybe they received $1 million each. That would indicate that their claims had some real heft. If we learned that they settled for $1 million each, we could adjust our estimate of Watson's guilt upward.

But just knowing that they settled doesn't give us any clue about which of those scenarios is more likely. It's probably somewhere in between, but the settlement doesn't give us any information about that. Whatever we guess that the terms of the settlements might have been, we're basing that guess on information we already had independent of the fact of the settlements.

Since the settlements themselves provide no new information about the strength of the claims, it's logically stupid to change our beliefs about the strength of the claims based on the fact that they settled.

if you consider the fact that whatever the plaintiffs settled for included an NDA.....you could start to put a price on things a little.....like how much would TMZ be willing to pay to get the story.....if NDA's weren't part of it, then I would give your angle a little more credit....

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

if you consider the fact that whatever the plaintiffs settled for included an NDA.....you could start to put a price on things a little.....like how much would TMZ be willing to pay to get the story.....if NDA's weren't part of it, then I would give your angle a little more credit....

First, I don't know whether the settlements included NDAs.

Second, whether or not they included NDAs means nothing at all. Maybe the women insisted on NDAs to protect themselves from a malicious prosecution action.

 

[BigJim®]

if you consider the fact that whatever the plaintiffs settled for included an NDA.....you could start to put a price on things a little.....like how much would TMZ be willing to pay to get the story.....if NDA's weren't part of it, then I would give your angle a little more credit....

Confidentiality, reportedly, had/has been a requirement by Buzbee (plaintiff counsel) and oddly not sought or wanted by Watson/Hardin.

 

[Gally]

what is your view....?

I think both sides honestly think they are right.  I think Watson truly believes that he was flirting and pushing up to a point where the masseuse either gave in or said enough was enough.  I think what he did was creepy and crossed a line to the point that he should have consequences so that he knows he went to far.  I think many of the plaintiffs had some idea what they were getting into and did it anyway.  I think some were ok with what Watson did in the moment and now are working this for a money grab.  I think some were truly traumatized by the encounters and feel extremely violated.   I don't think Watson overtly raped/forced/physically injured  any of the women in a way that most think of when they think of a brutal rape.  

I think there is a lot of grey area to everyone's limits and that what is ok for one is not ok for another. I think Watson crossed this line for many.  I think he has a masseuse fetish.  I don't think he should be banned for life.  I don't think he is unredeemable.   I think he needs to realize the world has changed and that every encounter he has moving forward needs to be thought about and his approach needs to change.  I think he should get 6 games per the PCP for doing things he shouldn't have done and be put on notice that he shouldn't act that way anymore.  

 

[Stinkin Ref]

First, I don't know whether the settlements included NDAs.

Second, whether or not they included NDAs means nothing at all. Maybe the women insisted on NDAs to protect themselves from a malicious prosecution action.

yeah, thats probably it......lol....

if we knew we would be able to find out.....how much would you be willing to bet that thats the case and how it shook down.....the plaintiffs asked for the NDA's....

 

[Stinkin Ref]

I think both sides honestly think they are right.  I think Watson truly believes that he was flirting and pushing up to a point where the masseuse either gave in or said enough was enough.  I think what he did was creepy and crossed a line to the point that he should have consequences so that he knows he went to far.  I think many of the plaintiffs had some idea what they were getting into and did it anyway.  I think some were ok with what Watson did in the moment and now are working this for a money grab.  I think some were truly traumatized by the encounters and feel extremely violated.   I don't think Watson overtly raped/forced/physically injured  any of the women in a way that most think of when they think of a brutal rape.  

I think there is a lot of grey area to everyone's limits and that what is ok for one is not ok for another. I think Watson crossed this line for many.  I think he has a masseuse fetish.  I don't think he should be banned for life.  I don't think he is unredeemable.   I think he needs to realize the world has changed and that every encounter he has moving forward needs to be thought about and his approach needs to change.  I think he should get 6 games per the PCP for doing things he shouldn't have done and be put on notice that he shouldn't act that way anymore.  

so it is safe to assume you are basing this view solely on the information/details leaks of what may or may not have happened....?

 

[facook]

I think both sides honestly think they are right.  I think Watson truly believes that he was flirting and pushing up to a point where the masseuse either gave in or said enough was enough.  I think what he did was creepy and crossed a line to the point that he should have consequences so that he knows he went to far.  I think many of the plaintiffs had some idea what they were getting into and did it anyway.  I think some were ok with what Watson did in the moment and now are working this for a money grab.  I think some were truly traumatized by the encounters and feel extremely violated.   I don't think Watson overtly raped/forced/physically injured  any of the women in a way that most think of when they think of a brutal rape.  

I think there is a lot of grey area to everyone's limits and that what is ok for one is not ok for another. I think Watson crossed this line for many.  I think he has a masseuse fetish.  I don't think he should be banned for life.  I don't think he is unredeemable.   I think he needs to realize the world has changed and that every encounter he has moving forward needs to be thought about and his approach needs to change.  I think he should get 6 games per the PCP for doing things he shouldn't have done and be put on notice that he shouldn't act that way anymore.  

I agree with this to a large degree, only adding that his fetish is an addiction in my opinion, and I will stand by my initial 8 game prediction and that neither side appeals. 

Also I hate this thread so much and I hate myself more for opening it every few days. 

 

[TheDirtyWord]

Confidentiality, reportedly, had/has been a requirement by Buzbee (plaintiff counsel) and oddly not sought or wanted by Watson/Hardin.

...two minutes later

yeah, thats probably it......lol....

if we knew we would be able to find out.....how much would you be willing to bet that thats the case and how it shook down.....the plaintiffs asked for the NDA's....

1 gazillion dollars!

 

[Gally]

so it is safe to assume you are basing this view solely on the information/details leaks of what may or may not have happened....?

It is all speculation on my part.  I have no insider information.  I am taking Watson's staunch word from the beginning that he is innocent as he thinks he was flirting and in the right and that he has done that before without any issues (because every person has different limits).  That is not say I think he is right in that belief.   I am taking the fact that he is rich and some will try and take advantage of that.  I just believe that the way the world has evolved that interactions between males/females is changing and what was thought of innocently pushing for sex is now not being tolerated and is being treated as sexual assault.  

I am just glad I am not in the dating world today because the grey area is so big with huge repercussions if it is taken the wrong way that I am surprised there aren't written contracts up front before any date to make sure you are protected (both sides).  

 

[Stinkin Ref]

I think both sides honestly think they are right.  I think Watson truly believes that he was flirting and pushing up to a point where the masseuse either gave in or said enough was enough.  I think what he did was creepy and crossed a line to the point that he should have consequences so that he knows he went to far.  I think many of the plaintiffs had some idea what they were getting into and did it anyway.  I think some were ok with what Watson did in the moment and now are working this for a money grab.  I think some were truly traumatized by the encounters and feel extremely violated.   I don't think Watson overtly raped/forced/physically injured  any of the women in a way that most think of when they think of a brutal rape.  

I think there is a lot of grey area to everyone's limits and that what is ok for one is not ok for another. I think Watson crossed this line for many.  I think he has a masseuse fetish.  I don't think he should be banned for life.  I don't think he is unredeemable.   I think he needs to realize the world has changed and that every encounter he has moving forward needs to be thought about and his approach needs to change.  I think he should get 6 games per the PCP for doing things he shouldn't have done and be put on notice that he shouldn't act that way anymore.  

you basically said he should be suspended without knowing if any of the details/accusations were even true or not.....

 

[Gally]

you basically said he should be suspended without knowing if any of the details/accusations were even true or not.....

I am not quite sure what you are trying to get at.  You asked me to tell you what my view is and I did so.  

 

[Stinkin Ref]

It is all speculation on my part.  I have no insider information.  I am taking Watson's staunch word from the beginning that he is innocent as he thinks he was flirting and in the right and that he has done that before without any issues (because every person has different limits).  That is not say I think he is right in that belief.   I am taking the fact that he is rich and some will try and take advantage of that.  I just believe that the way the world has evolved that interactions between males/females is changing and what was thought of innocently pushing for sex is now not being tolerated and is being treated as sexual assault.  

I am just glad I am not in the dating world today because the grey area is so big with huge repercussions if it is taken the wrong way that I am surprised there aren't written contracts up front before any date to make sure you are protected (both sides).  

did Watson actually say the bolded....if so do you have a link....I did a quick search and found nothing....did he really say he thought he was just flirting.....or is that something somebody said he might say as a defense...

 

[Stinkin Ref]

I am not quite sure what you are trying to get at.  You asked me to tell you what my view is and I did so.  

you said your view included that he should be suspended for 6 games.....I am just asking what you are basing that 6 games on....because any details we have heard may or may not be true....we don't know the accuracy of any details.....yet you are saying he should be suspended....so if you are basing your view on speculation that almost seems worse than basing it on the fact that he paid 20 women to be quiet and go away....

 

[Gally]

did Watson actually say the bolded....if so do you have a link....I did a quick search and found nothing....did he really say he thought he was just flirting.....or is that something somebody said he might say as a defense...

He stated he was innocent.  I made the assumption that his "tricks" (small towel, wipping it out, etc) would likely be his way to push for a more happy ending and because he thinks he is innocent in his mind it was just "flirting".  

This is all my assumption and nothing else.  

 

[Gally]

you said your view included that he should be suspended for 6 games.....I am just asking what you are basing that 6 games on....because any details we have heard may or may not be true....we don't know the accuracy of any details.....yet you are saying he should be suspended....so if you are basing your view on speculation that almost seems worse than basing it on the fact that he paid 20 women to be quiet and go away....

He paid 20 women to be quiet and go away because of a cost benefit analysis.  It is what happens in all settlements.  I am not sure why you have a hard time understanding that concept.  

The six game suspension I referenced is in the same light as the settlements.  It is to put this situation in the rear view mirror so everyone can move past it.  I guess I should have said that is what I think will happen.  I really don't have any idea if he deserves a suspension or not.  I know none of the facts or what really happened.  I am making assumptions to form my view.  I expressed my view as you requested.  I am not sure why you are trying to twist things into something else.  It seems very odd.  I am now regretting answering your question.  

 

[Stinkin Ref]

He stated he was innocent.  I made the assumption that his "tricks" (small towel, wipping it out, etc) would likely be his way to push for a more happy ending and because he thinks he is innocent in his mind it was just "flirting".  

This is all my assumption and nothing else.  

20 settlements mean nothing and we can't take anything away from that.....its like they never happened....got it

but we can say he should be suspended for 6 games based on pure speculation and unconfirmed details.....got it

 

[Stinkin Ref]

He paid 20 women to be quiet and go away because of a cost benefit analysis.  It is what happens in all settlements.  I am not sure why you have a hard time understanding that concept.  

The six game suspension I referenced is in the same light as the settlements.  It is to put this situation in the rear view mirror so everyone can move past it.  I guess I should have said that is what I think will happen.  I really don't have any idea if he deserves a suspension or not.  I know none of the facts or what really happened.  I am making assumptions to form my view.  I expressed my view as you requested.  I am not sure why you are trying to twist things into something else.  It seems very odd.  I am now regretting answering your question.  

my point is you were arguing that it's not fair to base anything on the 20 settlements.....yet you do think it's fair to base things (like a 6 game suspension) on pure speculation.....

 

[Gally]

my point is you were arguing that it's not fair to base anything on the 20 settlements.....yet you do think it's fair to base things (like a 6 game suspension) on pure speculation.....

That is not what I said at all about the settlements.  I said the settlements themselves mean nothing.   It gives you no more or less information than you already had.  Settlements do not prove innocence or guilt.  They are a mathematical  equation geared towards cutting costs.  

I also clarified that I don't know if he should be suspended or not because I don't have any facts.  My statement about a six game suspension was meant to be what I think will happen.

 

[Gally]

my point is you were arguing that it's not fair to base anything on the 20 settlements.....yet you do think it's fair to base things (like a 6 game suspension) on pure speculation.....

You asked for my pure speculation.  And I gave it to you.  Now you are trying to cancel me because I gave you my speculation as asked.  ugh

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

@JosinaAnderson

After telling me early last week a decision was not expected in the Deshaun Watson proceedings last week (but still saying 'never say never' as a tiny caveat), a league source says this morning 'it's possible. Not saying anything else.' That's all I got right now! #NoGuarantees

hashtag groundbreaking

wat

 

[daveR]

I think that most of the people that have planted their flag (in this Watson situation) on the "settling doesn't mean your guilty" hill.... don't even truly believe it themselves....

I think there's two sides to this and which you choose depends on what you've already decided on the situation.  

 

[daveR]

I think that most of the people that have planted their flag (in this Watson situation) on the "settling doesn't mean your guilty" hill.... don't even truly believe it themselves....

I believe that such settlements were regarded as inevitable and the costs were incorporated into his new contract.  The club wanted things done and the club paid.  I also believe that he knows people will hate him forever, regardless.  

 

[-OZ-]

my point is you were arguing that it's not fair to base anything on the 20 settlements.....yet you do think it's fair to base things (like a 6 game suspension) on pure speculation.....

If you want someone to guess on a suspension, what exactly do you expect them to base it on? None of us know what was presented. 

I think there's two sides to this and which you choose depends on what you've already decided on the situation.  

Like just about everything in life really. 

 

[Stinkin Ref]

You asked for my pure speculation.  And I gave it to you.  Now you are trying to cancel me because I gave you my speculation as asked.  ugh

I didn't ask for your speculation....I asked what was your view....and then what it was based on....and you said it was pure speculation and you had no insider info, etc.....

I just find the approach odd that we aren't supposed to read anything into the actual settlements....and they mean nothing....but we can form an opinion that the guy is "creepy and crossed a line to the point that he should have consequences....and some women were truly traumatized by the encounters and feel extremely violated"...based on information that we do not even know to be true or not at this point.....

I realize its just me...it just feels somewhat hypocritical to say settling was just a business decision and it means nothing....and then turn around and say but based on the information we have that we don't know is true or not, I think he is creepy should be suspended.....

appreciate the back and forth....I'll take my ball and go home on this angle of the discussion...

 

[Stinkin Ref]

If you want someone to guess on a suspension, what exactly do you expect them to base it on? None of us know what was presented. 

Like just about everything in life really. 

to be fair....I didn't ask him to guess on a suspension....that was somebody else....I asked what his "view" was and then followed that up with what was his view was based on....

 

[Gally]

I didn't ask for your speculation....I asked what was your view....and then what it was based on....and you said it was pure speculation and you had no insider info, etc.....

I just find the approach odd that we aren't supposed to read anything into the actual settlements....and they mean nothing....but we can form an opinion that the guy is "creepy and crossed a line to the point that he should have consequences....and some women were truly traumatized by the encounters and feel extremely violated"...based on information that we do not even know to be true or not at this point.....

I realize its just me...it just feels somewhat hypocritical to say settling was just a business decision and it means nothing....and then turn around and say but based on the information we have that we don't know is true or not, I think he is creepy should be suspended.....

appreciate the back and forth....I'll take my ball and go home on this angle of the discussion...

I guess I don't see your point at all.  I can easily speculate to form my opinion (which is meaningless to everyone except me).  This is nothing to do with the settlements at all.  Those were expected and don't give us anything more than we already had in terms of facts.  Therefore our own speculations haven't changed.  They are what they are.  The settlements don't change that in any way.  

 

[Obie Wan]

as far as Robinson's recommendation.....or what it actually ends up being after Rog and the NFL make possible adjustments....?

 it will be 0 games from Robinson, just so Rog doesn't get a free swing at Watson.

the NFL will posture and claim time served in 2021 to save some face

 

[DallasDMac]

I guess I don't see your point at all.  I can easily speculate to form my opinion (which is meaningless to everyone except me).  This is nothing to do with the settlements at all.  Those were expected and don't give us anything more than we already had in terms of facts.  Therefore our own speculations haven't changed.  They are what they are.  The settlements don't change that in any way.  

Am I the only one that pictures this as I read the back and forth between you two?

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

 it will be 0 games from Robinson, just so Rog doesn't get a free swing at Watson.

the NFL will posture and claim time served in 2021 to save some face

This makes zero sense. There was no “time served” in 2021. None. It would save zero face.

Nonsensical. 

 

[Catbird]

If Robinson concludes from the evidence presented to her that what Watson did does not meet the definition in the CPC of offenses that can result in suspension (as was clearly presented in this thread at least a dozen pages ago) it would be proper for her to issue no suspension.

I took Obie to be saying not that Robinson would refer to the 2021 season as time served, but that the league might use that as part of an excuse to explain why the lack of punishment now occurred. I thought the important part of OW's point was that she might, for good reason, enter no punishment to keep from allowing Goodell to enter a dramatically higher punishment.

Apologies Obie Wan if I missed on your point. That's just how I read it.

 

[Soulfly3]

judges know full well why people settle. remember, they were lawyers at one point, for a long period. 

they, unlike us, know that ppl settle even when "innocent". things we can't see or understand, is/was part of their every day lives. 

so no... Robinson wont look at the settling at think "man's guilty tho". Unless of course the evidence shown to her by the nfl shows that, in plain sight. then she would probably assume so (even tho the settled cases are irrelevant)

 

[Obie Wan]

If Robinson concludes from the evidence presented to her that what Watson did does not meet the definition in the CPC of offenses that can result in suspension (as was clearly presented in this thread at least a dozen pages ago) it would be proper for her to issue no suspension.

I took Obie to be saying not that Robinson would refer to the 2021 season as time served, but that the league might use that as part of an excuse to explain why the lack of punishment now occurred. I thought the important part of OW's point was that she might, for good reason, enter no punishment to keep from allowing Goodell to enter a dramatically higher punishment.

Apologies Obie Wan if I missed on your point. That's just how I read it.

That would be correct

no case presented by NFL to justify a penalty -Robinson gives 0 penalty

ROG can't intervene

NFL gets what it wants- Watson plays and plausible deniability on the outcome

NFL PR machine cranks out the face saving storyline:

(NFL whines they wanted indefinite suspension, but judge disagreed- wasn't our fault

good thing he didn't play last year, he suffered plenty by not playing in 2021)

 

[Bracie Smathers]

Robinson has had plenty of time working on the only case she's been on a hefty retainer.  Time's up.  Make the decision by the end of today because every NFL training camp will be open by tomorrow including the Browns who are held hostage until she does her only job.

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

Browns training camp schedule

Wed., July 27 - Closed practice

 

[Godsbrother]

All I know is we have all done a lot of guessing on what the suspension (if any) will be.  It will be nice when all of this is settled.