Skip to content

Watson Suspended for 11 Games and Fined $5 Million / and a bit OT and back.

The Browns Board
1.3k 59 47.6k 1
  • @flugel said:

    It's working out way better than I thought it would.  You've been predicting this all along so great job with that!

    First six games... Panthers (A), Jets (H), Steelers (H), Falcons (A), Chargers (H), Patriots (H). 

    Then the fun starts with Watson's first game back on the road against the Ravens. 

    tiamat63T tiamat63 wrote on last edited by

    @hoorta said:

    First six games... Panthers (A), Jets (H), Steelers (H), Falcons (A), Chargers (H), Patriots (H). 

    Then the fun starts with Watson's first game back on the road against the Ravens. 

    Something I'd also like to point out, those home games - ALL AFC matchups.   

    That's huge for this team.

  • @nickers said:

    I wouldn't call enabling a Sexual Predator a great day... However, For the sake of the team... I hope he learns his lesson and does well for us... I'm not a huge LBJ fan... But he came back and did what was asked of him... And we got our first Larry O'Brien...

    He lost 6 game checks how is that enabling him? How much did the Texans lose proportionately given that they were the real enablers? All professional sports are tainted, occasionally the mask slips off to expose the darkness that it really underlies it let's not fool ourselves.

    nickersN nickers wrote on last edited by

    @mddawg said:

    He lost 6 game checks how is that enabling him? How much did the Texans lose proportionately given that they were the real enablers? All professional sports are tainted, occasionally the mask slips off to expose the darkness that it really underlies it let's not fool ourselves.

    What makes you think he'll stop doing these "sessions" ?... He very well could've gotten a year and deserved it... They gained 3 1st rnd draft picks and an albatross off their necks... The only difference now is the magnifying glass increased 10x's

  • W Westside Steve wrote on last edited by

    For the guys playing the 'well he was already suspended for a year in texas' card, I don't believe he was suspended. I believe he sat out because he was demanding a trade. I don't know exactly what that has to do with his unhappiness with some of the coaching or front office hires.

    For what it's worth.

    WSS

  • @hoorta said:

    First six games... Panthers (A), Jets (H), Steelers (H), Falcons (A), Chargers (H), Patriots (H). 

    Then the fun starts with Watson's first game back on the road against the Ravens. 

    Something I'd also like to point out, those home games - ALL AFC matchups.   

    That's huge for this team.

    W Westside Steve wrote on last edited by

    @tiamat63 said:

    Something I'd also like to point out, those home games - ALL AFC matchups.   

    That's huge for this team.

    ?

    WSS

  • Sounds like the NFL wants to limit who’s performing the “rub-n-tug” on our franchise QB. ??

    C18AF17F-78BC-447E-9FB2-54F9BF0975E5.jpeg

    F FY56 wrote on last edited by

    @canton-dawg said:

    Sounds like the NFL wants to limit who’s performing the “rub-n-tug” on our franchise QB. ??

    C18AF17F-78BC-447E-9FB2-54F9BF0975E5.jpeg

    Well that ends DW's massage sessions if the NFL club approved therapists are all males.

    Although I was surprised to learn that the majority of massage therapists were indeed women.

    “Seventy percent of spa-goers are female, and there are more female therapists, so it makes sense that this would be the preference,” she said. Indeed, 85 percent of massage therapists in the United States are women, according to the American Massage Therapy Association. But culture and nationality also play a role"

  • It is important to let this play out.

    Things to note:

    The owners are not subject to the CBA which this falls under.

    The gambler is not subject to the Personal Conduct Policy which this falls under.

    The PED user is not subject to the Personal Conduct Policy which this falls under.

    The ball deflator is not subject to the Person Conduct Policy which this falls under.

    All those comparisons are not applicable in this instance.

    However, all of those comparisons are applicable in the court of public opinion.

    The MOST notable legitimate comparisons are Big Ben (1 accusation - 6 games) and Zeke Elliot (1 accusation - 6 games)

    Sue Robinson's quote "Egregious misconduct"

    I think this will be upped by 2-6 games and he will be fined and he will be required to attend counseling (which he should do regardless).

    The NFL won't want to look weak, but will not want this drawn out all season again.  So they won't go for the full season, but they will increase it. But not by so much as to draw appeals from the NFLPA.

    8-12 games.

    IMHO

    DieHardBrownsFan1D DieHardBrownsFan1 wrote on last edited by

    @crstphr2 said:

    It is important to let this play out.

    Things to note:

    The owners are not subject to the CBA which this falls under.

    The gambler is not subject to the Personal Conduct Policy which this falls under.

    The PED user is not subject to the Personal Conduct Policy which this falls under.

    The ball deflator is not subject to the Person Conduct Policy which this falls under.

    All those comparisons are not applicable in this instance.

    However, all of those comparisons are applicable in the court of public opinion.

    The MOST notable legitimate comparisons are Big Ben (1 accusation - 6 games) and Zeke Elliot (1 accusation - 6 games)

    Sue Robinson's quote "Egregious misconduct"

    I think this will be upped by 2-6 games and he will be fined and he will be required to attend counseling (which he should do regardless).

    The NFL won't want to look weak, but will not want this drawn out all season again.  So they won't go for the full season, but they will increase it. But not by so much as to draw appeals from the NFLPA.

    8-12 games.

    IMHO

    No fkg way.

  • For the guys playing the 'well he was already suspended for a year in texas' card, I don't believe he was suspended. I believe he sat out because he was demanding a trade. I don't know exactly what that has to do with his unhappiness with some of the coaching or front office hires.

    For what it's worth.

    WSS

    S SdBacker80 wrote on last edited by

    @westside-steve said:

    For the guys playing the 'well he was already suspended for a year in texas' card, I don't believe he was suspended. I believe he sat out because he was demanding a trade. I don't know exactly what that has to do with his unhappiness with some of the coaching or front office hires.

    For what it's worth.

    WSS

    Correct and it obviously didn’t diminish his earning capacity. He was on what was essentially Paid Leave. 
     

    I read the entire 13-14 page ruling I’m doing some work now but I wanted to share some thoughts on it. 

  • @sdbacker80 said:

    6 games.  
     

    Just one division opponent.   3-3.  4-2 is gravy 

    It's working out way better than I thought it would.  You've been predicting this all along so great job with that!

    S SdBacker80 wrote on last edited by

    @flugel said:

    It's working out way better than I thought it would.  You've been predicting this all along so great job with that!

    Thanks. I just read the ruling too.  Kind of surprised by it as it appears she listened very well to the NFLs version of the facts but the Judge wasn’t too impressed with the personal conduct policy how it was written and how it’s been applied.  


    it’s being reported on ESPN and NFL Radio. “ It is 6 for now” as if the media will stir things up and force Rogers hand 

  • @flugel said:

    It's working out way better than I thought it would.  You've been predicting this all along so great job with that!

    First six games... Panthers (A), Jets (H), Steelers (H), Falcons (A), Chargers (H), Patriots (H). 

    Then the fun starts with Watson's first game back on the road against the Ravens. 

    S SdBacker80 wrote on last edited by

    @hoorta said:

    First six games... Panthers (A), Jets (H), Steelers (H), Falcons (A), Chargers (H), Patriots (H). 

    Then the fun starts with Watson's first game back on the road against the Ravens. 

    I see four teams that can beat themselves even if we aren’t functioning well.
     

    1 team that we can bludgeon between the tackles. 

    and 1 team that is extremely well coached and probably not going to make a lot of mistakes.

  • @hoorta said:

    First six games... Panthers (A), Jets (H), Steelers (H), Falcons (A), Chargers (H), Patriots (H). 

    Then the fun starts with Watson's first game back on the road against the Ravens. 

    Some of the women's groups are not happy or satisfied with this ruling in this case or the NFL's stance on penalties involving the treatment of women. 

    This might  not be 100% over involving some of the women involved in this and other cases.

    We'll see what if anything happens next.   

    OrionO Orion wrote on last edited by

    @mjp28 said:

    Some of the women's groups are not happy or satisfied with this ruling

    Sorry.  Maybe they'd be happier if it was a guy that made the ruling.

  • @crstphr2 said:

    It is important to let this play out.

    Things to note:

    The owners are not subject to the CBA which this falls under.

    The gambler is not subject to the Personal Conduct Policy which this falls under.

    The PED user is not subject to the Personal Conduct Policy which this falls under.

    The ball deflator is not subject to the Person Conduct Policy which this falls under.

    All those comparisons are not applicable in this instance.

    However, all of those comparisons are applicable in the court of public opinion.

    The MOST notable legitimate comparisons are Big Ben (1 accusation - 6 games) and Zeke Elliot (1 accusation - 6 games)

    Sue Robinson's quote "Egregious misconduct"

    I think this will be upped by 2-6 games and he will be fined and he will be required to attend counseling (which he should do regardless).

    The NFL won't want to look weak, but will not want this drawn out all season again.  So they won't go for the full season, but they will increase it. But not by so much as to draw appeals from the NFLPA.

    8-12 games.

    IMHO

    No fkg way.

    KvoetheK Kvoethe wrote on last edited by

    @diehardbrownsfan1 said:

    No fkg way.

    The nfl has to play tough like they actually are pro woman.  They can just say...the nflpa said no...

  • Dutch OvenD Dutch Oven wrote on last edited by

    Four and a half months after making the trade, thousands of posts, fights, arguments and we end up right where we originally figured...

    Six game suspension. 

  • Four and a half months after making the trade, thousands of posts, fights, arguments and we end up right where we originally figured...

    Six game suspension. 

    S SdBacker80 wrote on last edited by

    @dutch-oven said:

    Four and a half months after making the trade, thousands of posts, fights, arguments and we end up right where we originally figured...

    Six game suspension. 


    Well hold on…I’ve heard “for now” by every talking head with an agenda. 

  • S SdBacker80 wrote on last edited by

    @diehardbrownsfan1 said:

    image.jpeg.d4067bbd83b016211e4107d11efb0f0a.jpeg

    He needs a hug.  He had Mary Kay on his show this morning.  She tried to be somewhat balanced and as soon as she got off Charlie couldn’t stop harping on our contract with Deshaun 

  • @hoorta said:

    First six games... Panthers (A), Jets (H), Steelers (H), Falcons (A), Chargers (H), Patriots (H). 

    Then the fun starts with Watson's first game back on the road against the Ravens. 

    Some of the women's groups are not happy or satisfied with this ruling in this case or the NFL's stance on penalties involving the treatment of women. 

    This might  not be 100% over involving some of the women involved in this and other cases.

    We'll see what if anything happens next.   

    U Unsympathetic wrote on last edited by

    @mjp28 said:

    some of the women involved

    Only one civil case is outstanding - all the rest have been resolved.

  • @dutch-oven said:

    Four and a half months after making the trade, thousands of posts, fights, arguments and we end up right where we originally figured...

    Six game suspension. 


    Well hold on…I’ve heard “for now” by every talking head with an agenda. 

    Dutch OvenD Dutch Oven wrote on last edited by

    @sdbacker80 said:


    Well hold on…I’ve heard “for now” by every talking head with an agenda. 

    The NFL has three days to start the appeal process, if they want to, correct?

  • @sdbacker80 said:


    Well hold on…I’ve heard “for now” by every talking head with an agenda. 

    The NFL has three days to start the appeal process, if they want to, correct?

    Canton DawgC Canton Dawg wrote on last edited by

    @dutch-oven said:

    The NFL has three days to start the appeal process, if they want to, correct?

    Correct.

  • It is important to let this play out.

    Things to note:

    The owners are not subject to the CBA which this falls under.

    The gambler is not subject to the Personal Conduct Policy which this falls under.

    The PED user is not subject to the Personal Conduct Policy which this falls under.

    The ball deflator is not subject to the Person Conduct Policy which this falls under.

    All those comparisons are not applicable in this instance.

    However, all of those comparisons are applicable in the court of public opinion.

    The MOST notable legitimate comparisons are Big Ben (1 accusation - 6 games) and Zeke Elliot (1 accusation - 6 games)

    Sue Robinson's quote "Egregious misconduct"

    I think this will be upped by 2-6 games and he will be fined and he will be required to attend counseling (which he should do regardless).

    The NFL won't want to look weak, but will not want this drawn out all season again.  So they won't go for the full season, but they will increase it. But not by so much as to draw appeals from the NFLPA.

    8-12 games.

    IMHO

    hoortaH hoorta wrote on last edited by

    @crstphr2 said:

    It is important to let this play out.

    Things to note:

    The owners are not subject to the CBA which this falls under.

    The gambler is not subject to the Personal Conduct Policy which this falls under.

    The PED user is not subject to the Personal Conduct Policy which this falls under.

    The ball deflator is not subject to the Person Conduct Policy which this falls under.

    All those comparisons are not applicable in this instance.

    However, all of those comparisons are applicable in the court of public opinion.

    The MOST notable legitimate comparisons are Big Ben (1 accusation - 6 games) and Zeke Elliot (1 accusation - 6 games)

    Sue Robinson's quote "Egregious misconduct"

    I think this will be upped by 2-6 games and he will be fined and he will be required to attend counseling (which he should do regardless).

    The NFL won't want to look weak, but will not want this drawn out all season again.  So they won't go for the full season, but they will increase it. But not by so much as to draw appeals from the NFLPA.

    8-12 games.

    IMHO

    I see your points, but I respectfully disagree.  The NFL "may" try to lengthen the suspension to appease certain women's groups that would want nothing less than a  lifetime ban and castration. 

    BUT.. as Ms. Arbitrator wrote in her opinion,  the Personal conduct policy agreed on in the player's contract says 6 game max for a violation.  You can't change the rules retroactively.  Take it to the bank if Goodell and the NFL TRY to add more games, the NFLPA is going to raise an unprecedented holy stink about it. It could drag out in Federal courts for months. 

  • It is important to let this play out.

    Things to note:

    The owners are not subject to the CBA which this falls under.

    The gambler is not subject to the Personal Conduct Policy which this falls under.

    The PED user is not subject to the Personal Conduct Policy which this falls under.

    The ball deflator is not subject to the Person Conduct Policy which this falls under.

    All those comparisons are not applicable in this instance.

    However, all of those comparisons are applicable in the court of public opinion.

    The MOST notable legitimate comparisons are Big Ben (1 accusation - 6 games) and Zeke Elliot (1 accusation - 6 games)

    Sue Robinson's quote "Egregious misconduct"

    I think this will be upped by 2-6 games and he will be fined and he will be required to attend counseling (which he should do regardless).

    The NFL won't want to look weak, but will not want this drawn out all season again.  So they won't go for the full season, but they will increase it. But not by so much as to draw appeals from the NFLPA.

    8-12 games.

    IMHO

    OrionO Orion wrote on last edited by

    @crstphr2 said:

    The NFL won't want to look weak, but will not want this drawn out all season again.  So they won't go for the full season, but they will increase it. But not by so much as to draw appeals from the NFLPA.

    8-12 games.

    If I were an owner, and Roger GoToHell disregarded what Sue Robinson had ruled and upped the penalty, I'd have to ask, "Then what the hell are we paying Robinson for!?"

  • @crstphr2 said:

    The NFL won't want to look weak, but will not want this drawn out all season again.  So they won't go for the full season, but they will increase it. But not by so much as to draw appeals from the NFLPA.

    8-12 games.

    If I were an owner, and Roger GoToHell disregarded what Sue Robinson had ruled and upped the penalty, I'd have to ask, "Then what the hell are we paying Robinson for!?"

    Dutch OvenD Dutch Oven wrote on last edited by

    @orion said:

    If I were an owner, and Roger GoToHell disregarded what Sue Robinson had ruled and upped the penalty, I'd have to ask, "Then what the hell are we paying Robinson for!?"

    Even if the player has an owner who gave him a fully guaranteed contract, which as a fellow owner you want nothing to do with?

    I bet you might think differently, in that hypothetical situation.