No criminal charges for Deshaun Watson

[CrashDavisSports]

Wow if this is a real article (and seems it is) wonder if anyone saw this article by Charles Robinson which goes into great detail on the cross by Watson's attorney of Kamesha Baker. Baker, among the lead detectives on the case openly admits to het it's guilty until proven guilty of a woman files the complaint.

Tense deposition in Deshaun Watson lawsuit featured battles over presumption of innocence, coercion vs. consent

Last week's lengthy questioning of a Houston Police Department investigator provides a snapshot of how each legal team will attempt to construct some of their arguments.

sports.yahoo.com

Same thing happened to Johnny Depp. He was accused of mental and physical abuse, and then it was his job and his lawyers to prove Amber Heard was lying. Is it right? No. But if you do things the opposite way, no one will want to ever accuse anyone of anything because they are afraid to file anything. But I believe you are right. The burden of proof should be on the accuser, not the defendant.

 

[DJ]

Same thing happened to Johnny Depp. He was accused of mental and physical abuse, and then it was his job and his lawyers to prove Amber Heard was lying. Is it right? No. But if you do things the opposite way, no one will want to ever accuse anyone of anything because they are afraid to file anything. But I believe you are right. The burden of proof should be on the accuser, not the defendant.

It's the fucked up world we live in.

 

[jarntt]

in order....

1) Still not sure how much is does hurt from a cap perspective since what is not used year one carries over AND gives is flexibility if more cap space is needed to bring in other players, especially a QB

I'm not sure how else to explain it. His base salary for the games for which he is suspended never hits the cap. Ever. In any year. So if his salary is $30M and he is suspended half the year that is $15M that never hits the cap. It has nothing to do with the benefit of rolling savings. If you look at the cap over a number of years which is what teams do, in my example his total cap hit over the life of his contract will be $215M. With a $1M year one salary it would be $229.5M. That's over a $14M benefit to their cap over the life of his contract.

The rollover helps future years cap hits. But again, this portion of his salary never hits the cap. That is the key point.

2) I'm guessing they thought he'd be suspended. Are you purposely pretending not to see the part that for all they knew it would be shorter (maybe only 2-4 games) or the suspension could take place in 2023. I've said that a few times so please copy this or read it as often as it takes to sink in.

I don't think they saw any possibility it would be less than 6 based on the NFL suspension policy, but who knows. The point isn't if they thought it was "possible" it was shorter in their minds. The point is that it was "likely" to be at least 6 or even if they had their heads buried in the sand it was "possible" to happen. So, when managing an NFL team Cap, not preparing for that possibility would be reckless or done on purpose for a reason other than just cap reasons. On 2023. Sure that's possible they thought that. Again, not as likely, but I think we have all said all along that 2023 was a "possibility" (I know I have). My point holds true for 2023 as well. They should have as high of a base salary as their cap allows in case the year he is suspended is 2023 (and they do, so that's good).

3) OK, wouldn't you rather have $30 mil available as opposed to $15 mil? whatever is left rolls over regardless.

Absolutely, but I'd much rather save $15M from ever hitting my cap than $500K. They don't need $30M to operate. They don't likely even need $15M.

4) was your point just about the cap room? Nope. If I'm wrong and I lumped you in with all the others incorrectly my apologies but seems everyone I've disagreed with here at one point claimed something like "why pay him so little now when you have a ton of cap space?"

Cap space is part of it because without it they couldn't do what I am suggesting. Since they do have the cap space they can.

5) what you keep ignoring though is paying him more or a lot more in 2022 could potentially limit their flexibility. Once again, please write this down, as when the deal was agreed the Browns very possibly thought it would be a short suspension or it could be in 2023. Guessing if they did what you think they should have then he got suspended in 2023 you'd rip them for that. OK, not guessing. You would.

I disagree, not that it gives them less space this year I agree with that, but that it limits their flexibility because they don't need that flexibility in 2022. They have $40M to work with. Most teams do whatever they want with only $10M. So again, instead of using $30M in my scenario for his salary, use $20M if you want. A $20M salary would still give them $20M in cap space which would be one of the highest in the league.

On your second item: that doesn't even make sense because he would also have a high year two base salary in both reality and the scenario I am proposing, in fact even higher, so it would play out exactly as I am proposing for year one but with an even bigger benefit to the cap if he were suspended that year. My point is you do what I am suggesting for both years in case it drags out, not just year one.

 

[dtgold88]

Come on grammAr Nazi you know in that context when addressing one or multiple "A" QB or QBs is acceptable.

Stop trying so hard.

Now get back to class.

Baker is one QB, not QBs.

Lie, dance, deflect, distort, etc. and you cannot change that. You'll try, though, and it will be gold.

 

[dtgold88]

Can you not understand by listing the only non-busts/good players one can deduce the other picks were busts/bad?

Playing your silly spinner game is fun. Well until its not.

what I can deduce is if I told you a team/FO/person was bad at drafting I'd come up with at least one name (likely a bunch) of players drafted to make my point.

You cannot even name one bad pick

FYI, I gave you a list of good picks. some potentially great picks.

 

[dtgold88]

He's a detective not a lawyer or judge. He doesn't fall under the same guidelines of innocent to proven guilty.

Same as a police officer arriving at a DV call. If the women called, likely the man is being taken in. Up to the courts to and slimey attorneys to find the truth.

SHE does fall under the same guidelines.

 

[dtgold88]

The irony, capped off with a serving of stupidity.

Nice work pot, so what color kettle do you prefer?

Got to love this forum. You really can't get anymore dumb. Keep posting and keep proving.

stealing again from Harold Ramos in stripes, but "that's none".

 

[dtgold88]

I'm not sure how else to explain it. His base salary for the games for which he is suspended never hits the cap. Ever. In any year. So if his salary is $30M and he is suspended half the year that is $15M that never hits the cap. It has nothing to do with the benefit of rolling savings. If you look at the cap over a number of years which is what teams do, in my example his total cap hit over the life of his contract will be $215M. With a $1M year one salary it would be $229.5M. That's over a $14M benefit to their cap over the life of his contract.

The rollover helps future years cap hits. But again, this portion of his salary never hits the cap. That is the key point.

I don't think they saw any possibility it would be less than 6 based on the NFL suspension policy, but who knows. The point isn't if they thought it was "possible" it was shorter in their minds. The point is that it was "likely" to be at least 6 or even if they had their heads buried in the sand it was "possible" to happen. So, when managing an NFL team Cap, not preparing for that possibility would be reckless or done on purpose for a reason other than just cap reasons. On 2023. Sure that's possible they thought that. Again, not as likely, but I think we have all said all along that 2023 was a "possibility" (I know I have). My point holds true for 2023 as well. They should have as high of a base salary as their cap allows in case the year he is suspended is 2023 (and they do, so that's good).

Absolutely, but I'd much rather save $15M from ever hitting my cap than $500K. They don't need $30M to operate. They don't likely even need $15M.

Cap space is part of it because without it they couldn't do what I am suggesting. Since they do have the cap space they can.

I disagree, not that it gives them less space this year I agree with that, but that it limits their flexibility because they don't need that flexibility in 2022. They have $40M to work with. Most teams do whatever they want with only $10M. So again, instead of using $30M in my scenario for his salary, use $20M if you want. A $20M salary would still give them $20M in cap space which would be one of the highest in the league.

On your second item: that doesn't even make sense because he would also have a high year two base salary in both reality and the scenario I am proposing, in fact even higher, so it would play out exactly as I am proposing for year one but with an even bigger benefit to the cap if he were suspended that year. My point is you do what I am suggesting for both years in case it drags out, not just year one.

1) I guess I'm not sure how else to explain it other than to say it's the same deal they offer in all large restructures/extensions. your comments assume long suspension in 2022 and that the Browns know that's what will happen while no one really knows.

2) Your first 3 words really says it all when you said "I don't think". Not ripping you or saying you don't think. Probably more fair to say your 3rd word says it all as you are doing nothing but guessing and you have no idea what the browns believed/thought. As to the 2023 aspect, maybe we should wait and see when he gets suspended as it sure does not seem like a crazy notion the suspension could be in 2023. almost like the Browns simply did what they always do with these contracts as they don't know what the future holds.

3) I'd also rather save $15 mil than $30 mil. Once again, this implies we know what the suspension is (or the browns did) and it's clear we/you/they don't know.

4) as I said, everyone with whom I've disagreed at one point implied it must be to help Watson since they have so much cap room now so why not spend it when they have it. Not sure any have manned up and simply said they were wrong about that now that they know Myles (and others) got the same base in 2022.

5) suppose they want that money to bring in a QB without having to completely redo other salaries or the roster to make it work? QBs can be pricey.

 

[NWPATSFAN]

Baker is one QB, not QBs.

Lie, dance, deflect, distort, etc. and you cannot change that. You'll try, though, and it will be gold.

Some grammAr Nazi you turned out to be.

Hit the books Skippy you need them. Recess is over.

 

[NWPATSFAN]

what I can deduce is if I told you a team/FO/person was bad at drafting I'd come up with at least one name (likely a bunch) of players drafted to make my point.

You cannot even name one bad pick

FYI, I gave you a list of good picks. some potentially great picks.

Still playing your silly spinner game and you're losing.

You haven't introduced anything new in weeks.

YAAAAWWWWNNN!

 

[dtgold88]

Same thing happened to Johnny Depp. He was accused of mental and physical abuse, and then it was his job and his lawyers to prove Amber Heard was lying. Is it right? No. But if you do things the opposite way, no one will want to ever accuse anyone of anything because they are afraid to file anything. But I believe you are right. The burden of proof should be on the accuser, not the defendant.

She kind went beyond this IMO with these answers talking about him being guilty because of size/stature......

Hardin: Wow. Then really, a person that you are suggesting should never take a chance on getting a massage, because if anybody wants to accuse him of something, he has no recourse. Right? If the woman accuses him of anything and he has those attributes, he has no defense because you’re going to believe the woman?

Baker: (Witness nods.)

Hardin: And then you’re going to say there can’t be consent because of — because of his status in the community. Or — right?

Baker: Yes.

 

[NWPATSFAN]

SHE does fall under the same guidelines.

No she doesn't. Give it up already. She's investigating. Not a lawyer or jury sworn under oath. She can say anything she wants. Worse case is a defamation law suit.

 

[dtgold88]

Still playing your silly spinner game and you're losing.

You haven't introduced anything new in weeks.

YAAAAWWWWNNN!

I mean, it was last week. you really have a tough time with plural don't ya little buckaroo?

But I gave you Newsome and JOK as players who look like exceptional players/picks. Phillips, Bryant, Harris and DPJ as solid picks in rounds 3-6.

I mean, I can even name horrendous picks/busts from FOs/GMs I think are among the best. Ozzie Newsome, for instance, drafted Kyle Boller and Travis Taylor in round 1. But you cannot even come up with a bad pick by a FO you said is terrible?

Yes...ya gotta love this forum.

 

[dtgold88]

No she doesn't. Give it up already. She's investigating. Not a lawyer or jury sworn under oath. She can say anything she wants. Worse case is a defamation law suit.

Of course she can say anything she wants...doesn't mean she is not playing under the same rules.

are you just messing with me? Hoop version of Punked? Hard to imagine any adult being as irrational as you are here.

 

[NWPATSFAN]

dtgold88 in this thread.

Well basically every thread he enters.

 

[dtgold88]

dtgold88 in this thread.

Well basically every thread he enters.
View attachment 299263

took you longer than I thought to play the irrelevant meme/GIF card. congrats on holding out so long? also props on no lies today....yet.

still none FYI.

 

[NWPATSFAN]

Of course she can say anything she wants...doesn't mean she is not playing under the same rules.

are you just messing with me? Hoop version of Punked? Hard to imagine any adult being as irrational as you are here.

I give up you are this stupid. I tried on multiple occassions to allow you to disprove that.

But oh no, not the spinner you just had to keep posting the same thing for weeks and leave no doubt.

 

[NWPATSFAN]

took you longer than I thought to play the irrelevant meme/GIF card. congrats on holding out so long? also props on no lies today....yet.

still none FYI.

Truth hurts I see.

 

[dtgold88]

I give up you are this stupid. I tried on multiple occassions to allow you to disprove that.

But oh no, not the spinner you just had to keep posting the same thing for weeks and leave no doubt.

you - Browns regime is bad at drafting
me - cool, name one bad pick they made?
you - tell me the good picks they made
you - you are stupid
you -

I guess that is better than just lying, Tommy, so you've got that going for you.

 

[Cincyfan78]

took you longer than I thought to play the irrelevant meme/GIF card. congrats on holding out so long? also props on no lies today....yet.

still none FYI.

Meme's and Gifs are life, good sir, not irrelevant. I'll be waiting for your apology...