Watson to Cleveland

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
53,134
To me an indefinite suspension is ridiculous especially with the lack of criminal charges and basically all these civil lawsuits settled. What’s the point of an independent arbiter if the NFL is just gonna say fuck you we don’t like that penalty and will just do our own. It’s a bullshit system and the NFLPA needs to get this power away from the commissioner.
Do you know why there were no criminal charges and what the implication of all those settlements is? It’s actually a brilliant move by the NFL. Let the NFLPA go to court to defend a serial sexual assaulter. It’s a bad, bad look for anyone getting up on a box claiming a guy who clearly did these sex crimes against and again and again deserves fairer treatment after signing his $200 million+ deal.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
26,726
To me an indefinite suspension is ridiculous especially with the lack of criminal charges and basically all these civil lawsuits settled. What’s the point of an independent arbiter if the NFL is just gonna say fuck you we don’t like that penalty and will just do our own. It’s a bullshit system and the NFLPA needs to get this power away from the commissioner.
My guess is that 99% of the NFLPA doesn't care about the discipline policy because they all feel like they will never be disciplined. They'd much rather negotiate rules for practice times (etc.).

If the NFL wants to set a precedent about how much power they hold here, this might be a good case to do.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
31,444
In the Brady case, Troy Vincent made the initial decision on punishment with the Commish standing as the ultimate appeal authority. Now it's the independent arbiter making the initial decision on punishment, but the Commish is still standing as the ultimate appeal authority.

In both cases the Commish has the power not just to decide on the appeal request, but also to actually increase the punishment handed out. The legal eagles will have to check in here, but this time around the NFL will still control getting any dispute from the player/NFLPA routed to its preferred court circuit, where said court will once again ratify the Commish's powers under the CBA's Rule 46. Am I wrong?
 
Last edited:

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
31,444
The union will cite numerous examples in its response brief, due Friday, to try to disprove that.
Will there be a batch of current and former players with some dirty laundry besieging the NFLPA not to do that and possibly filing an injunction to prevent it?


Otherwise, this approach of the NFLPA trashing a whole host of players who did really bad things in the past doesn't seem like a great one.
 
Last edited:

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
40,917
Hartford, CT
In the Brady case, Troy Vincent made the initial decision on punishment with the Commish standing as the ultimate appeal authority. Now it's the independent arbiter making the initial decision on punishment, but the Commish is still standing as the ultimate appeal authority.

In both cases the Commish has the power not just to decide on the appeal request, but also to actually increase the punishment handed out. The legal eagles will have to check in here, but this time around the NFL will still control getting any dispute from the player/NFLPA routed to its preferred court circuit, where said court will once again ratify the Commish's powers under the CBA's Rule 46. Am I wrong?
I’m not a labor lawyer, but I think the NFL could replicate its strategy in the Brady case, namely to file a suit in the Second Circuit (probably SDNY) asking for ratification of its arbitration decision more or less concurrently with the issuance of the appeal decision. Since the NFL controls the timing of the issuance of the appeal decision, it isn’t possible absent a real fuckup by the league’s outside counsel for the NFLPA to file in another circuit that needn’t follow/grapple with the Second Circuit’s holding in the Brady case.

The NFL holds the cards here, and the NFLPA again acquiesced to that in the latest CBA. They could’ve negotiated an entirely different procedure for player discipline, even down to jurisdiction/venue of any lawsuits disputing a disciplinary ruling, but they didn’t.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
27,080
To me an indefinite suspension is ridiculous especially with the lack of criminal charges and basically all these civil lawsuits settled. What’s the point of an independent arbiter if the NFL is just gonna say fuck you we don’t like that penalty and will just do our own. It’s a bullshit system and the NFLPA needs to get this power away from the commissioner.
except:
1. They negotiated and agreed to it, including specifically agreeing that the appeal decision is final, the idenpendent arbiter decides the facts.
2. They already have agreed to indefinite suspensions within the CBA (it's what Josh Gordon for example had) where you can apply each year to be reinstated

Edit- I'd also say the NFL has an interesting case that indefinite suspension is appropriate because of the serial nature of the offenses, even in the time it took the Judge to make her decision more cases came up, so the league's argument is.. just like with drugs, we want him to show us he can refrain from repeating the serial behavior for a period of time, show he has made progress, etc. before we decide.

In the Brady case, Troy Vincent made the initial decision on punishment with the Commish standing as the ultimate appeal authority. Now it's the independent arbiter making the initial decision on punishment, but the Commish is still standing as the ultimate appeal authority.

In both cases the Commish has the power not just to decide on the appeal request, but also to actually increase the punishment handed out. The legal eagles will have to check in here, but this time around the NFL will still control getting any dispute from the player/NFLPA routed to its preferred court circuit, where said court will once again ratify the Commish's powers under the CBA's Rule 46. Am I wrong?
Well the new process the arbiter's decisions on the facts are binding to both sides, so some real difference there, if for example the Judge here had said "I don't find that he violated the Player Conduct Policy" then that is that, if she found that the preponderance of the evidence did not show he had violated it in 1 or 2 of the examples before her that would be binding. What isn't binding is her discipline recommendation. Also interesting is that the NFL tightened up the language about both sides agreeing that the appeal decision was final. They were trying to tighten it up for any lawsuit. We'll see if it succeeded, but I'd much rather be representing the NFL here than Watson if they impose a longer suspension and he sues.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
12,907
Whhaaatt? Roger is coming over the top to try and increase the suspension? Who could have seen that coming?
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
26,726

AlNipper49

Huge Member
Dope
Apr 3, 2001
42,588
Mtigawi
Whhaaatt? Roger is coming over the top to try and increase the suspension? Who could have seen that coming?
Because he’s going to make it one year and proclaim how harsh it is. Watson will lose his 1mil backloaded contract for this year. ESPN will have it in 80 point font, as his direction, for 36 hours. Don’t people see what has been being setup for like six months now?
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
27,080
Haven't read NFL brief but one thing LaCanfora mentioned is that under the CBA, each action could have been taken as a separate incident while the arbiter took all of the incidents as one.

Given that Roger is final decision-maker, Watson's attorneys probably should have advised him to take the settlement offer.
I think he sees more value in claiming he did nothing wrong than in playing this year. He built his whole contract around being suspended for a year.
He has his agent out there telling Schefter that he feels he did nothing wrong, not only after the arbitrator ruled he did, but a day after the Browns' owner put out a pretty horrendous statement which included a claim about how remorseful Watson is.
 

cornwalls@6

Less observant than others
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
4,260
from the wilds of western ma
Whhaaatt? Roger is coming over the top to try and increase the suspension? Who could have seen that coming?
You must need oxygen after all these victory laps;) I know the reflexive move around here is to assume the worst in everything Rog/the owners do, I do it too, but if the upshot of this is, whatever their motivation, that he serves a year suspension, that’s a good thing.
 

Red Averages

owes you $50
SoSH Member
Apr 20, 2003
7,527
Because he’s going to make it one year and proclaim how harsh it is. Watson will lose his 1mil backloaded contract for this year. ESPN will have it in 80 point font, as his direction, for 36 hours. Don’t people see what has been being setup for like six months now?
This seems spot on. Even a 10 game suspension at this point will make the NFL seem like the good guy because the goal posts have shifted so much.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
13,752
I don’t understand the point of the NFLPA filing briefs, etc after the whole Brady fiasco. Watson deserves more, sure, but if in the end Goodell is just going to do whatever he wants (as is is right under the CBA) why play along with all this other fake shit.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
7,670
around the way
I don’t understand the point of the NFLPA filing briefs, etc after the whole Brady fiasco. Watson deserves more, sure, but if in the end Goodell is just going to do whatever he wants (as is is right under the CBA) why play along with all this other fake shit.
Because it's all fake shit. Goodell doesn't care if Watson clubs baby seals at halftime of the Super Bowl if it's good for business. It's all optics. It has always been all about fucking optics.
 

Ralphwiggum

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
8,772
Needham, MA
This is like happening upon a wrestling match between Hitler and Ted Bundy and trying to figure out who to root for. Ultimately I want Watson to sit out more than six games because he’s a horrible person, but it isn’t going to feel good that the only mechanism for that to happen is another Goodell flex. Man, I hate this league.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
14,018
New York City
This is like happening upon a wrestling match between Hitler and Ted Bundy and trying to figure out who to root for. Ultimately I want Watson to sit out more than six games because he’s a horrible person, but it isn’t going to feel good that the only mechanism for that to happen is another Goodell flex. Man, I hate this league.
You root hard for Bundy. This is an easy question.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
12,907
Because he’s going to make it one year and proclaim how harsh it is. Watson will lose his 1mil backloaded contract for this year. ESPN will have it in 80 point font, as his direction, for 36 hours. Don’t people see what has been being setup for like six months now?
This seems spot on. Even a 10 game suspension at this point will make the NFL seem like the good guy because the goal posts have shifted so much.
Because it's all fake shit. Goodell doesn't care if Watson clubs baby seals at halftime of the Super Bowl if it's good for business. It's all optics. It has always been all about fucking optics.
Welcome to the thread! I already laid out this exact script 2 month ago.

I don't blame people for ignoring my posts in other forums, but I'm usually pretty good in this one.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
12,907
Because he’s going to make it one year and proclaim how harsh it is. Watson will lose his 1mil backloaded contract for this year. ESPN will have it in 80 point font, as his direction, for 36 hours. Don’t people see what has been being setup for like six months now?
This seems spot on. Even a 10 game suspension at this point will make the NFL seem like the good guy because the goal posts have shifted so much.
Because it's all fake shit. Goodell doesn't care if Watson clubs baby seals at halftime of the Super Bowl if it's good for business. It's all optics. It has always been all about fucking optics.
Welcome to the thread! I already laid out this exact script 2 month ago.

I don't blame people for ignoring my posts in other forums, but I'm usually pretty good in this one.

From the sham punishment by an "independent arbitrator" to Goodell coming over the top so he can say "largest penalty for a non-criminal offense!"

This was scripted the moment the Browns traded for him and invested 5 years and hundreds of millions of dollars. The league wants star QBs, but owners aren't going to blindly throw away that kind of cash.

As I said after the arbitrator ruling:

It's almost like this story was written the second the Browns traded for him.

We're at the penultimate scene. Just need the public outcry to force Roger to up this to the, "harshest penalty given to a player" - a whole 8 games - and then the most predictable story ever told will be complete.
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
36,359
South Boston
To me an indefinite suspension is ridiculous especially with the lack of criminal charges and basically all these civil lawsuits settled. What’s the point of an independent arbiter if the NFL is just gonna say fuck you we don’t like that penalty and will just do our own. It’s a bullshit system and the NFLPA needs to get this power away from the commissioner.
Explain the relevance of the lack of criminal charges (conviction for which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt) and settled civil lawsuits (which are designed to compensate those harmed by tortious behavior) to the analysis of the length of NFL suspension.
 

Gash Prex

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 18, 2002
5,862
I’m also curious about whether the so called “uncharged conduct” can be included - ie the 20 plus allegations not presented at the hearing.

Not sure if its the case any more, but in Federal Court, once a defendant was convicted of a crime, the sentencing report would include uncharged conduct to enhance a sentence. So if it works in federal criminal cases, there is certainly no issue with it in a union negotiated CBA discipline process.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
27,080
I’m also curious about whether the so called “uncharged conduct” can be included - ie the 20 plus allegations not presented at the hearing.

Not sure if its the case any more, but in Federal Court, once a defendant was convicted of a crime, the sentencing report would include uncharged conduct to enhance a sentence. So if it works in federal criminal cases, there is certainly no issue with it in a union negotiated CBA discipline process.
Would be pretty hilarious if Goodell comes down at 12 games and a fine, the NFLPA sues then Roger announces he's opening a NEW and separate investigation into NEW potential violations (ie the other 20 allegations).
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
12,907
Explain the relevance of the lack of criminal charges (conviction for which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt) and settled civil lawsuits (which are designed to compensate those harmed by tortious behavior) to the analysis of the length of NFL suspension.
You're asking @jsinger121 to explain something that isn't his to explain.

The NFL itself has drawn a clear line in the sand between criminal charges and everything else. Big Ben and Elliot are the two harshest penalties for non-criminal offenses (six games) relating to player conduct. All other suspensions that ran longer involved criminal charges.

The line in the sand the NFL draws may shift based on public perception, but there's clearly a line there.
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
36,359
South Boston
You're asking @jsinger121 to explain something that isn't his to explain.

The NFL itself has drawn a clear line in the sand between criminal charges and everything else. Big Ben and Elliot are the two harshest penalties for non-criminal offenses (six games) relating to player conduct. All other suspensions that ran longer involved criminal charges.

The line in the sand the NFL draws may shift based on public perception, but there's clearly a line there.
It’s his post expressing his belief, and he’s disagreeing with what the NFL might do.

Thanks for the help, though. The part about the clear line in the sand that may shift was cool.

What were the criminal charges associated with Josh Gordon smoking marijuana?
 

cornwalls@6

Less observant than others
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
4,260
from the wilds of western ma
Though I'll shed no tears to see Watson sit for another year(if that comes to pass), and missing two years of his prime is not nothing, there's a part of me that has always thought expecting large, for profit, entertainment companies to administer justice is folly. They're just not designed or incentivized for the job. And that once these things have been adjudicated in the legal system, a player should be free to ply his trade for whoever will have him. Just like in any other form of entertainment/business. As an individual consumer of the NFL product, I'd have a very hard time continuing to support the team I root for(Patriots) if they had acquired him with full knowledge of the case. And I could vote with my eyes/feet/wallet accordingly. Part of me thinks let him play, let the Browns and the League reap whatever they reap from it(which, admittedly, won't be much).
 
Last edited:

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
12,907
It’s his post expressing his belief, and he’s disagreeing with what the NFL might do.

Thanks for the help, though.
Just tell me now: you ever plan on responding in good faith without sarcasm, or you plan on just being a piece of shit with all of your responses?

We've met. I've been more than lenient with your cute little napoleonic complex that dominates your online persona. But I'm just about at the point of blocking you if there's never a chance for a good faith conversation/you can't complete a post without trying to assert your internet dominance.
 

Myt1

serves you chicken wings
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
36,359
South Boston
Just tell me now: you ever plan on responding in good faith without sarcasm, or you plan on just being a piece of shit with all of your responses?

We've met. I've been more than lenient with your cute little napoleonic complex
Well, this certainly is a first.

that dominates your online persona. But I'm just about at the point of blocking you if there's never a chance for a good faith conversation/you can't complete a post without trying to assert your internet dominance.
The issue is that I don’t need you to explain to me things that I understand better than you do, or act as an intermediary in a post I direct to someone else.

For example, remind me, how many accusers and incidents were at issue in connection with the clear sand-line drawing Elliot and Rothelisburger incidents?
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
22,826
Newton
Welcome to the thread! I already laid out this exact script 2 month ago.

I don't blame people for ignoring my posts in other forums, but I'm usually pretty good in this one.

From the sham punishment by an "independent arbitrator" to Goodell coming over the top so he can say "largest penalty for a non-criminal offense!"

This was scripted the moment the Browns traded for him and invested 5 years and hundreds of millions of dollars. The league wants star QBs, but owners aren't going to blindly throw away that kind of cash.

As I said after the arbitrator ruling:
The real "Roger Saves the Day" outcome would be if, in his role as judge/jury/executioner, he decides in the appeal to clawback some of the deferred/out years money Cleveland owes Watson, thus both making it look like "hit Watson where it counts" while also saving his buddy Jimmy Haslam tens of millions of dollars in the process.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
27,080
Isn’t the NFL substance-abuse policy/punishments essentially its own entity? How is it relevant here?
It's relevant only in the sense that it outlines what both sides see as reasonable punishments. It's tough to argue that a punishment that by agreement of both parties is left entirely to the discretion of the commissioner is unreasonable and unforeseeable, if it is identical to a punishment that both parties agreed to in another section of the same Agreement. That is, the NFLPA in negotiating the powers of the commissioner to impose penalties for personal conduct violations, could have insisted on firm guidelines or caps (as they did on drugs) but chose not to, and as such it's a high bar to say something is inherently unreasonable under those terms. It's especially hard to argue that something is inherently unreasonable in the uncapped punishment section, when you agreed to it as a reasonable punishment when you were drawing clear guidelines in another area. Now...if Goodell came back with a lifetime ban with no reinstatement opportunity... well that would be easier to contest as simply outside the realm of what a reasonable party thought they were agreeing to.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
12,907
Well, this certainly is a first.



The issue is that I don’t need you to explain to me things that I understand better than you do, or act as an intermediary in a post I direct to someone else.

For example, remind me, how many accusers and incidents were at issue in connection with the clear sand-line drawing Elliot and Rothelisburger incidents?
Nah, that's not the issue. You asked him to explain the relationship between criminal charges/settled lawsuits to the length of suspension. You're then pretending like those lines either (A) haven't already been addressed by the NFL or (B) haven't been defined in previous suspensions.

The NFL has a history of waiting out civil court cases before handing out their rulings. The NFL hasn't handed out suspensions longer than 6 games for player conduct.

So either your question was a stupid one or you weren't aware of the answers.

What were the criminal charges associated with Josh Gordon smoking marijuana?
None. He was suspended due to violating the leagues drug policy. Which isn't the same as violating player conduct.

But you know all this stuff better than me.

Looks like your question wasn't a stupid one. You just don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
 

Dogman

Yukon Cornelius
Dope
Mar 19, 2004
14,309
Missoula, MT
Productive, non-personal attack conversation please.

I can't quite fault KFP and his characterization of how Myt1 responds at times on this board but I can say that he is doing exactly what Myt1occasionally does. Please knock it off.

I'll only ask nicely once.
 

Seels

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
4,269
NH
If and when the NFL ups the suspension, I feel like they hold some responsibility in allowing the Browns to trade for a damaged asset in the first place. Not that I care about the Browns.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
50,011
This new policy where Goodell doesn't want to pass the final judgement, unless he wants to say "psych" and pass the final judgement, is really something else.
In fact, it’s the same system, with a minor caveat that @Cellar-Door ably raises below, but which I think is functionally moot, which is why it was a great “concession” on the part of the league.

The NFLPA basically bargained for something that sounds like it would make things less arbitrary with respect to disciplinary power by the league, but in fact the league’s power was maintained but with a shiny coat of paint.

I really wonder what that “concession” cost the NFLPA in the negotiations, because if it was anything of any significance, the league negotiators probably strained their backs high-fiving each other after it was over.

Even Kafka thinks the NFL’s system is a little wacky. It’s a great flex for Goodell though - here’s your due process unless I have a different opinion, then I’ll just descend off my throne and do whatever I want.
It really is the epitome of a facade of justice, isn’t it?

And this is the improved version under the new CBA!

Why does last year not count as part of the suspension? Did he get paid to sit out? The guy is a scumbag and I don’t care if he ever plays again, but it seems disingenuous to say it’s only a 6 game suspension when he already sat out a whole season.
This may be your point, but for anyone unaware, this was a significant part of the independent arbiter’s decision.

I wonder if the NFL wants to use this as a test case.

I wouldn't so sure of the injunction. As I mentioned before, the parties bargained for this system and while I don't do a ton of labor law, it is my understanding that courts generally defer to collectively bargained agreements.

. . .

If the NFL wants to set a precedent about how much power they hold here, this might be a good case to do.
I’m sure it was. Brady was test case 1.0, and they established their authority under the CBA, yeah? So 2.0 is getting a legal determination that that authority is absolute.

And, as you and others pointed out, it’s about what was bargained for, which is what the Brady precedent says…

Unfortunately for the NFLPA, these aren’t valid legal arguments. I mean, we just went through this with the Second Circuit’s ruling in Brady’s case.

If it came to it, a federal court would likely tell the NFLPA to pound sand/negotiate a more favorable suspension structure next time. And the NFL may not hate having that fight given the facts here.

. . .

The NFL holds the cards here, and the NFLPA again acquiesced to that in the latest CBA. They could’ve negotiated an entirely different procedure for player discipline, even down to jurisdiction/venue of any lawsuits disputing a disciplinary ruling, but they didn’t.
Yep.

In the Brady case, Troy Vincent made the initial decision on punishment with the Commish standing as the ultimate appeal authority. Now it's the independent arbiter making the initial decision on punishment, but the Commish is still standing as the ultimate appeal authority.

In both cases the Commish has the power not just to decide on the appeal request, but also to actually increase the punishment handed out. The legal eagles will have to check in here, but this time around the NFL will still control getting any dispute from the player/NFLPA routed to its preferred court circuit, where said court will once again ratify the Commish's powers under the CBA's Rule 46. Am I wrong?
My man!

Well the new process the arbiter's decisions on the facts are binding to both sides, so some real difference there, if for example the Judge here had said "I don't find that he violated the Player Conduct Policy" then that is that, if she found that the preponderance of the evidence did not show he had violated it in 1 or 2 of the examples before her that would be binding. What isn't binding is her discipline recommendation. Also interesting is that the NFL tightened up the language about both sides agreeing that the appeal decision was final. They were trying to tighten it up for any lawsuit. We'll see if it succeeded, but I'd much rather be representing the NFL here than Watson if they impose a longer suspension and he sues.
Thank you for this clarification, as I’d been looking for what the hell the NFLPA might have thought they were bargaining for besides swapping a league lackey like Vincent for a respected retire judge which actually offers the league greater legitimacy without making any real functional difference.

In terms of that functional difference, as per your clarification, making the arbiter’s finding of fact binding, which has the added influence on the sense of legitimacy by making the process more mirror our legal system, well, I wonder if it actually makes a real, meaningful, substantive difference, for the vast majority of cases anyway.

Like, by analogy, I’m thinking of how the Exclusionary Rule appears to be a strong line against police misconduct, but in reality it’s not because it only applies to the small fraction of cases that will go to significant pre-trial negotiations; it doesn’t prevent bad behavior in the vast majority of cases where that’s not the intent. Similarly, very few cases in the NFL get to this point, and for the vast majority of them, fact finding is sorta pro forma because the league only goes this far when things are certain—it’s not like the league actually cares about intrinsic morality and justice, yeah? In this regard, a factual dispute in Brady is kinda sui generis, but as a factor in the negotiations, it seems to me that the league bargained away fact finding to an independent arbiter when they didn’t actually care about it because they almost never go this far if there is real factual dispute that they can’t overcome, but they got to make a big deal out of it in negotiations because Brady was on everyone’s minds.
Given that Roger is final decision-maker, Watson's attorneys probably should have advised him to take the settlement offer.
I have questions about the people the union and the players use for counsel…
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
50,011
Productive, non-personal attack conversation please.

I can't quite fault KFP and his characterization of how Myt1 responds at times on this board but I can say that he is doing exactly what Myt1occasionally does. Please knock it off.

I'll only ask nicely once.
Crap. Now I’ll never know if it tastes great or it’s less filling.
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
3,597
If and when the NFL ups the suspension, I feel like they hold some responsibility in allowing the Browns to trade for a damaged asset in the first place. Not that I care about the Browns.
Why? The Browns knew Watson was a damaged asset. Unless the NFL misled Cleveland, it is all on them. They made the trade and signed that contract knowingly..
 
Last edited:

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
50,011
If The League pursues an indefinite suspension or really anything super harsh, if Goodell choses something lesser but greater than the arbiter’s decision, The League gets to look really serious about justice and consequences while Goodell plays Solomon.

Or Goodell can back the arbiter or The League, but every possibility has an angle that can make Goodell look super legit…

..whether Goodell “overules The League” or not.

How does that make your head feel, @djbayko ? :p


I’m also curious about whether the so called “uncharged conduct” can be included - ie the 20 plus allegations not presented at the hearing.

Not sure if its the case any more, but in Federal Court, once a defendant was convicted of a crime, the sentencing report would include uncharged conduct to enhance a sentence. So if it works in federal criminal cases, there is certainly no issue with it in a union negotiated CBA discipline process.
You raise a super important issue, which the judge addressed, in fact.

I think the analogy here would be different jurisdictions. Like, if you are charged at the state level and are exonerated, you can still be charged with violating a federal statute. That’s actually the rationale behind the federal Hate Crimes statutes, i.e. to allow the federalees to get involved if the states aren’t getting shit done. Here, The League didn’t sanction Watson, so it’s still in play.

That said, the issue you raise was part of the independent arbiter’s decision. But it was with respect to determination of punishment and not finding of fact, so as per @Cellar-Door ’s explanation, is not binding on The League’s Goodell’s determination.
 

Ralphwiggum

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
8,772
Needham, MA
If and when the NFL ups the suspension, I feel like they hold some responsibility in allowing the Browns to trade for a damaged asset in the first place. Not that I care about the Browns.
Depends on what (if any) conversations they had with the league on this. If they asked and were given assurances that his suspension would be 6-ish games and now Goodell is pulling a double cross, then I agree (though I also don’t particularly care all that much since they were willing to trade for a serial sexual abuser in the first place). If they didn’t do their due diligence with the league about a potential suspension then I disagree. The NFL doesn’t have an obligation to save the Browns from doing stupid shit.

I think the likeliest explanation here is the Browns simply do not give a shit. They had an opportunity to acquire a franchise QB and knew he might be unavailable to them for a bit, and that they also might catch some flack for trading for him. But they figured the risk was worth the ultimate reward, that eventually he’ll be eligible to play and eventually whatever backlash that they got/will get from the media and/or the public will blow over. And then they’ll have their franchise QB which you pretty much have to have to win in the NFL. And chances are they will be proven right and right now the only issue is how long they will have to wait for him.
 

Pesky Pole

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2001
1,653
Phoenixville, PA
If and when the NFL ups the suspension, I feel like they hold some responsibility in allowing the Browns to trade for a damaged asset in the first place. Not that I care about the Browns.
The Browns knew who they were trading for. They just hoped he'd receive a slap on the hand and they'd be getting their franchise QB. The fact that they paid as much as they did for Watson is the real crime for Browns fans. If the league does the right thing, we'll see how ironclad that guaranteed money is.

Edit - to answer my own question, looks like he can't lose any guaranteed money for suspensions in 2022 or 2023. They deserve whatever happens to them.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
53,134
The Browns signed him before all the facts had been resolved and with more women still coming forward. They took a bet on a psychopath with a couple dozen sexual assault allegations. Nothing that can happen would be unfair to them.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
27,080
The Browns signed him before all the facts had been resolved and with more women still coming forward. They took a bet on a psychopath with a couple dozen sexual assault allegations. Nothing that can happen would be unfair to them.
Also signed him to a new deal that was obviously built on the assumption that he'd be suspended for a full year. CLE's only concern before trading for him was whether he'd go to prison, once the DA tanked the Grand Jury they were making that deal
 

cornwalls@6

Less observant than others
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
4,260
from the wilds of western ma
The Browns signed him before all the facts had been resolved and with more women still coming forward. They took a bet on a psychopath with a couple dozen sexual assault allegations. Nothing that can happen would be unfair to them.
Agree with this. Not sure why it should’ve been the leagues responsibility to prevent them from doing this. The Browns ignored what was known at the time of the deal, and if it blows up in their faces, good and fair. I really think the lions share of scorn should be directed at them, rather than the league office in this instance.