No criminal charges for Deshaun Watson

[Wamu]

MlFootball
@MLFOOTBALL2

A full-season suspension would pause Deshaun Watson's contract for a year, putting him under contract to the #Browns through 2027, not 2026. It also would replace his $46M salary in 2023 with his 2022 salary of $1.035M, per
@ProFootballTalk

I don't have time to read what you posted right now.

 

[dtgold88]

View attachment 300303

I don't have time to read what you posted right now.

Just means Browns are better off if he gets a full season as opposed to a long suspension but one where the season will count for Watson. Reason is because it would save us 40 mil+ in cap space for 2023 season with his contract being pushed back a season.

 

[Wamu]

Just means Browns are better off if he gets a full season as opposed to a long suspension but one where the season will count for Watson. Reason is because it would save us 40 mil+ in cap space for 2023 season with his contract being pushed back a season.

 

[dtgold88]

View attachment 300307

Not sure of the exact cutoff but at some point the season counts for watson. Used to be if he played 6 games he accrued the season.

So, if he plays the last 6 games for us the season counts for him. If he does not play enough games it's as though this season never happened for him. Instead of his contract ending in 2026 as it is now, it gets pushed back a season and ends in 2027. The 1.035 mil he's set to earn in year 1/2022 instead gets pushed back to 2023.

 

[rmilia1]

Except goodell said the owners were going to be held to higher standard than the players

He was lying though lol

 

[The Q]

He was lying though lol

Which will be part of the nflpa’s argument


For good reason

 

[VikingFan2k2]

Not sure of the exact cutoff but at some point the season counts for watson. Used to be if he played 6 games he accrued the season.

So, if he plays the last 6 games for us the season counts for him. If he does not play enough games it's as though this season never happened for him. Instead of his contract ending in 2026 as it is now, it gets pushed back a season and ends in 2027. The 1.035 mil he's set to earn in year 1/2022 instead gets pushed back to 2023.

That does change things. If his contract tolls a year, then the Browns make out like bandits with the salary cap ready to explode over the next few years. At least in terms of his salary, not draft capital, they gave up way too much for a (literal) jerkoff IMO.

 

[jarntt]

Not sure of the exact cutoff but at some point the season counts for watson. Used to be if he played 6 games he accrued the season.

So, if he plays the last 6 games for us the season counts for him. If he does not play enough games it's as though this season never happened for him. Instead of his contract ending in 2026 as it is now, it gets pushed back a season and ends in 2027. The 1.035 mil he's set to earn in year 1/2022 instead gets pushed back to 2023.

I brought this up a while back. I think (but am not sure) it needs to be the entire season. Unlike holdouts where the player only needs to be on the active roster for 6 games I THINK when it comes to a suspension even one game will keep the contract from tolling.

On it being better for the Browns I disagree. Sure it helps the cap for next year I guess (and hurts in 2027) but that's only because it pushes everything back a year and sounds more like a silver lining in a bad scenario. You gave up a shit ton of picks to have a guy sit out his second year in a row and think its better? That's like saying it's good when any player gets suspended for a year and that happens. They just get a year older. If that was the case you could have possibly waited another year to find a QB. That will also be a long time off before playing (2 years off now for him) and a wasted year for a franchise. That's a huge loss IMO. Also and this is a little more obscure so I hope I explain this properly. A #1 pick this year is worth more than a #1 next year, right. So, same with a player. So they gave up #1 picks in 22,23 and 24 for a player that won't play until 2023 and that makes the trade for him even worse from a value perspective. But, it's possible that was valued in by them when they made the deal. I think they certainly may have assumed they'd lose him for a year so that would make my last comment wrong. I guess they knew there was a good chance this could be the case and did it any way. I would prefer to try and hang on and make a late playoff push if Watson comes back in week 11 or so if it's my team instead of losing him for the season but I guess the odds of them making the playoffs if he is out for 10 games are extremely slim so who knows.

If they lose him for the whole year or indefinitely do you think they try and unload older players or players in the last year of their contract and kind of reboot next year? If so I think it would strengthen your opinion that it would be better.

 

[CrashDavisSports]

I do agree, but they could say he already sat out the '21 season, and that the '22 suspension is conditional with him having to re-apply for the league. That would basically be a 2 year suspension, with conditional reinstatement.

That was not league imposed. That was the Texans benching his ass. Has nothing to do with any suspension.

Also, I am hearing that the NFL wants an indefinite suspension, minimum of a year, with Watson being required to apply for reinstatement.

What this would do, is push Watson's contract another year. Watson wouldn't actually start his contract with the Browns until he is active again. So if he is suspended the whole year, he goes a whole year without pay, and then next year would begin this years value, which would be a million dollars.

This benefits the Browns. Watson is hosed as far as value over next two years, but he already got his nut in the way of his signing bonus, so he is not hurting, but it also pushes his next free agency period out another year.

So while Watson will not make much money the next two years, he already got compensated to ride this out in a signing bonus.

Win for Browns as far as not losing contract value and salary cap.
Win for Watson because league is not touching his contract.
Loss for Watson also because of free agency pushed back and only earning 1 million over 2 years.
Win for league because they hand down a lengthy extension.
Loss for NFLPA because they couldn't protect their trouble maker.

 

[Cincyfan78]

That was not league imposed. That was the Texans benching his ass. Has nothing to do with any suspension.

Also, I am hearing that the NFL wants an indefinite suspension, minimum of a year, with Watson being required to apply for reinstatement.

What this would do, is push Watson's contract another year. Watson wouldn't actually start his contract with the Browns until he is active again. So if he is suspended the whole year, he goes a whole year without pay, and then next year would begin this years value, which would be a million dollars.

This benefits the Browns. Watson is hosed as far as value over next two years, but he already got his nut in the way of his signing bonus, so he is not hurting, but it also pushes his next free agency period out another year.

So while Watson will not make much money the next two years, he already got compensated to ride this out in a signing bonus.

Win for Browns as far as not losing contract value and salary cap.
Win for Watson because league is not touching his contract.
Loss for Watson also because of free agency pushed back and only earning 1 million over 2 years.
Win for league because they hand down a lengthy extension.
Loss for NFLPA because they couldn't protect their trouble maker.

And as I said - we've seen similar stances, especially in college, when a program/player knows they are about to get hit with a suspension/sanction to be proactive and self-impose restrictions in hopes that the governing body that imposes the fines/suspensions/etc... goes easier on them because they've already done something.

Was only saying that I could see the Watson team trying to use that angle - not that I agree with it, or would myself take that into account, but it is certainly something I would expect to be brought up on their end when meshing out their expected punishment.

Personally, I've said I would likely suspend him for 2 years, with the need to re-apply for the league. That's my own thought. If other civil issues/abuses and such have merited suspensions from 4-6 games - I think the bare minimum should be 1.5 game for every woman who filed = 36 games, or just round it at 34 to make it 2 years - and then he has to re-apply for the league. If the leagued wanted to treat each civil case as an actual individual matter - and 4 games is usually the minimum, that would 96 games and over 5.5 years out of the league, which would effectively end his NFL career.

 

[Cincyfan78]

I brought this up a while back. I think (but am not sure) it needs to be the entire season. Unlike holdouts where the player only needs to be on the active roster for 6 games I THINK when it comes to a suspension even one game will keep the contract from tolling.

On it being better for the Browns I disagree. Sure it helps the cap for next year I guess (and hurts in 2027) but that's only because it pushes everything back a year and sounds more like a silver lining in a bad scenario. You gave up a shit ton of picks to have a guy sit out his second year in a row and think its better? That's like saying it's good when any player gets suspended for a year and that happens. They just get a year older. If that was the case you could have possibly waited another year to find a QB. That will also be a long time off before playing (2 years off now for him) and a wasted year for a franchise. That's a huge loss IMO. Also and this is a little more obscure so I hope I explain this properly. A #1 pick this year is worth more than a #1 next year, right. So, same with a player. So they gave up #1 picks in 22,23 and 24 for a player that won't play until 2023 and that makes the trade for him even worse from a value perspective. But, it's possible that was valued in by them when they made the deal. I think they certainly may have assumed they'd lose him for a year so that would make my last comment wrong. I guess they knew there was a good chance this could be the case and did it any way. I would prefer to try and hang on and make a late playoff push if Watson comes back in week 11 or so if it's my team instead of losing him for the season but I guess the odds of them making the playoffs if he is out for 10 games are extremely slim so who knows.

If they lose him for the whole year or indefinitely do you think they try and unload older players or players in the last year of their contract and kind of reboot next year? If so I think it would strengthen your opinion that it would be better.

Yep. It effectively would mean 2 years of using a backup QB to bridge the gap, and really puts a dent in that "window" of expectations with regards to winning and being a true contender.

 

[Iggloo]

Browns be Brownsing? Man I know the Texans may face league discipline too, but they made out like bandits trading this dude.

 

[PDay8810]

Seemed desperado at the time and still does.

Besides being a helluva athlete, I remain sceptical Watson is NFL elite championship QB so many seem is a certainty

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Browns be Brownsing? Man I know the Texans may face league discipline too, but they made out like bandits trading this dude.

Paying Watson 35 million not play worked out for them. Watson the one making out like a bandit. Really unbelievable.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Seemed desperado at the time and still does.

Besides being a helluva athlete, I remain sceptical Watson is NFL elite championship QB so many seem is a certainty

I too have my doubts about Watson being elite.

 

[PDay8810]

Watson the one making out like a bandit. Really unbelievable.

CLEVELAND

Sad but true

 

[CrashDavisSports]

And as I said - we've seen similar stances, especially in college, when a program/player knows they are about to get hit with a suspension/sanction to be proactive and self-impose restrictions in hopes that the governing body that imposes the fines/suspensions/etc... goes easier on them because they've already done something.

Was only saying that I could see the Watson team trying to use that angle - not that I agree with it, or would myself take that into account, but it is certainly something I would expect to be brought up on their end when meshing out their expected punishment.

Personally, I've said I would likely suspend him for 2 years, with the need to re-apply for the league. That's my own thought. If other civil issues/abuses and such have merited suspensions from 4-6 games - I think the bare minimum should be 1.5 game for every woman who filed = 36 games, or just round it at 34 to make it 2 years - and then he has to re-apply for the league. If the leagued wanted to treat each civil case as an actual individual matter - and 4 games is usually the minimum, that would 96 games and over 5.5 years out of the league, which would effectively end his NFL career.

They are still using 5 to 6 women as the cornerstones to the punishment. All of which are said to have physical evidence against him in some way. If that is the case, you could also treat each one of these as a separate act instead of lumping them together, and each case of sexual misconduct in the leagues eyes is worth what?

Then I also saw where if a player is punished for a sexual assault by the league, a second offense could be a banable offense. So do you lump all these assaults into one offense because they are all being filed together and he hadn't been punished previous for these, or do the shear number of them accumulate to allow the league to bypass the initial punishment and go straight to a ban?

I don't think that is how it is going to go, but I could see it as something they have/are mulling over. By the sounds of it, the league leaked what it thinks should be the punishment, so if the arbiter comes back with a lesser punishment, the league can say, hey, we wanted a more strict punishment but they mutually agreed upon arbiter didn't rule by what we think is best, so you have to put the blame on her, not the NFL. Gives the league offices a chance to save face if there is backlash.

This former judge is probably really good about sorting through bullshit and being a very fair judge, but how does it play into her head that Watson is a predator of women, and has assaulted so many of them? Now granted, he is not criminally liable here at all, so what is fair? It will be interesting to see how this finally gets decided.

 

[Cincyfan78]

They are still using 5 to 6 women as the cornerstones to the punishment. All of which are said to have physical evidence against him in some way. If that is the case, you could also treat each one of these as a separate act instead of lumping them together, and each case of sexual misconduct in the leagues eyes is worth what?

Then I also saw where if a player is punished for a sexual assault by the league, a second offense could be a banable offense. So do you lump all these assaults into one offense because they are all being filed together and he hadn't been punished previous for these, or do the shear number of them accumulate to allow the league to bypass the initial punishment and go straight to a ban?

I don't think that is how it is going to go, but I could see it as something they have/are mulling over. By the sounds of it, the league leaked what it thinks should be the punishment, so if the arbiter comes back with a lesser punishment, the league can say, hey, we wanted a more strict punishment but they mutually agreed upon arbiter didn't rule by what we think is best, so you have to put the blame on her, not the NFL. Gives the league offices a chance to save face if there is backlash.

This former judge is probably really good about sorting through bullshit and being a very fair judge, but how does it play into her head that Watson is a predator of women, and has assaulted so many of them? Now granted, he is not criminally liable here at all, so what is fair? It will be interesting to see how this finally gets decided.

I believe that Goodell has the ability to change the punishment. He can't levy the initial punishment, but once one is handed down, he is the "arbiter" in the appeals case - so someone for the NFL appeals a 10 game suspension, and he can then rule it should be a year. Someone can correct me if I am wrong, though.

I think if this were 1-2, or even 3-4 women, you could lump these as 1 offense...but 66 women over 17 months leading to 24 (and possibly still 26) civil trials, in which the statute of limitations is still open until January of 2024....if they try and lump all of these together, and then in December of '23 someone else decides to come forward - how could they lump that accusation as part of the singular, especially if the punishment has already be handed out, and potentially completed? That's why I think it should be somewhere around 1.5 (or maybe even 2 games, for a 3 year suspension if they wanted to "grant" that self-imposed year off in '21 - so still 2 more additional years) games per civil suit, that is 2 years, and allows the statute of limitations to run out - and with Watson having to re-apply for the league, this allows the league to consider any new/additional suits, or information that may come to light during that time.

Going to be really, really interesting to see where this lands. I think a year is the absolute bare minimum we will see, but personally I would like to see 2 years allowing the statute to run out, and a re-application for the league.

 

[dtgold88]

I brought this up a while back. I think (but am not sure) it needs to be the entire season. Unlike holdouts where the player only needs to be on the active roster for 6 games I THINK when it comes to a suspension even one game will keep the contract from tolling.

On it being better for the Browns I disagree. Sure it helps the cap for next year I guess (and hurts in 2027) but that's only because it pushes everything back a year and sounds more like a silver lining in a bad scenario. You gave up a shit ton of picks to have a guy sit out his second year in a row and think its better? That's like saying it's good when any player gets suspended for a year and that happens. They just get a year older. If that was the case you could have possibly waited another year to find a QB. That will also be a long time off before playing (2 years off now for him) and a wasted year for a franchise. That's a huge loss IMO. Also and this is a little more obscure so I hope I explain this properly. A #1 pick this year is worth more than a #1 next year, right. So, same with a player. So they gave up #1 picks in 22,23 and 24 for a player that won't play until 2023 and that makes the trade for him even worse from a value perspective. But, it's possible that was valued in by them when they made the deal. I think they certainly may have assumed they'd lose him for a year so that would make my last comment wrong. I guess they knew there was a good chance this could be the case and did it any way. I would prefer to try and hang on and make a late playoff push if Watson comes back in week 11 or so if it's my team instead of losing him for the season but I guess the odds of them making the playoffs if he is out for 10 games are extremely slim so who knows.

If they lose him for the whole year or indefinitely do you think they try and unload older players or players in the last year of their contract and kind of reboot next year? If so I think it would strengthen your opinion that it would be better.

A full year is not ideal. when I said better I mean there's an argument to be made a full year is better than close to a full season (say, 12-13 games or more).

No, I don't think they'd just punt the season and get rid of guys...though could see looking for a better option than Brissett.

 

[dtgold88]