Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍
True. But there are millions more that don't have a dog in this hunt. Most NFL fans in New York, LA, Dallas, Chicago, Miami...they couldn't care less about a Watson suspension.
Again, if the penalty for his behavior is less than a year suspension then to me it communicates no discipline for his actions. Why have rules that players are to abide by if reckless behavior is tolerated.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They were voicing lots of concern when news was coming out...
The timing of this filing undoubtedly is to put the NFL and Robinson on notice that a punishment less than 1 year/indefinite will not fare well. This also puts the NFL on notice that they better not have put on a poor/weak representation of the women's cases (as purported by some media in order to justify minimal suspension to the public).............as well as offering up other strong reasons (all of the women having settled or not........all the numbers coming forth in the reporting/interviewing of well-respected media...........putting to rest the owner comparisons..........repeated violations of the COVID protocol.............and other such important points) for severe punishment.
Do you remember when the Michael Vick stuff came out? They were showing the property & skeletons & dog fights & all the protests.They were voicing lots of concern when news was coming out...
If it were me I’d already have suspended him for a year with a review to be reinstated. He wouldn’t be reinstated until all cases were settled, all current & future.A yr and indefinite until all of the cases are settled. The NFL shouldn't be in the business of letting a sexual predator play with cases still outstanding.
I don't know why you keep wanting to bring Vick up. That was many years ago and IIRC, none of the uproar about his case came up until after he went on trial for dog fighting. It grew when he was convicted and he did not receive a small punishment from the NFL. Watson hasn't been charged and details haven't come out but the uproar hasDo you remember when the Michael Vick stuff came out? They were showing the property & skeletons & dog fights & all the protests.
it didn’t take a year for the NFL to feel the heat & do something. IMO, so far the response has been bland in comparison
They really haven't voiced any concern so far
They were voicing lots of concern when news was coming out...
They have been silent since the trade and are now waiting to see what the NFL will doThe “me too” crowd has been absent. It’s like they all disappeared.
Did they all get pregnant during COVID or something and now are too busy raising kids?
Actually, "#metoo " is not a formal organization with a formal physical office. It is a social movement where victims of sexual abuse (assault, harassment, rape) are coming forward and telling their stories. That has already been going on with the Watson issues..........in the form of the plaintiffs, the 66 interviewed females reporting inappropriate conduct, and the myriad of supportive comments/commentaries found on Twitter and other major media platforms.They have been silent since the trade and are now waiting to see what the NFL will do
My first reply to this train of conversation was in reference to Michael Vick. & IIRC, there was a lot of stink before he was charged. It was a big deal when he was brought in for questioning.I don't know why you keep wanting to bring Vick up. That was many years ago and IIRC, none of the uproar about his case came up until after he went on trial for dog fighting. It grew when he was convicted and he did not receive a small punishment from the NFL. Watson hasn't been charged and details haven't come out but the uproar has
They have been silent since the trade and are now waiting to see what the NFL will do
The cynicism of Browns' ownership is pretty stunning as they just apparently seemingly assumed the fan base would be all-in on the Watson trade with the prospect of having a SB-contending QB, in spite of all his baggage.SPORTS ILLUSTRATED
Report: Deshaun Watson Will Never Play for Browns
The Cleveland Browns could be in trouble, according to the belief of one NFL insider.
The Cleveland Browns could be in trouble, according to the belief of one NFL insider. After three days of trial, quarterback Deshaun Watson awaits the verdict of his suspension from the NFL. According to CBS Sports' Jason La Confora, there's a thought that Watson never wears a Browns uniform during the season.
- NOAH STRACKBEIN
- JUL 1, 2022
La Confora made this known during an appearance on 93.7 The Fan when he said there could be more coming out surrounding Watson and these sexual assault lawsuits.
"I don’t know if Deshaun Watson is ever going to play with the Cleveland Browns,” La Confora said. "If he is told to sit on the sidelines for a year, what more comes out during that year?"
La Confora also said the Browns didn't do any research into Watson's case, which could lead to many surprises as time passes.
"I wouldn’t not hazard a guess on how many games he starts for the Browns," La Confora said. "I have to see him start one before I even consider it."
I think Browns got the March 11th no bill from first grand jury and signed Watson on the 20th expecting fully that the decision on the 22nd would reflect the same from the second Grand jury. In my opinion that's all they needed to make the trade.The cynicism of Browns' ownership is pretty stunning as they just apparently seemingly assumed the fan base would be all-in on the Watson trade with the prospect of having a SB-contending QB, in spite of all his baggage.
And keep in mind it wasn't just the Browns as other franchises including Arther Blank's ATL Falcons were also bidding for the "prize".
Fully expecting???? That's because Hardin already knew his "influence" extended beyond the first no bill, and with his extraordinary "clairvoyant abilities," assured Haslam that the decision was in the bag.......well before the decision was made.I think Browns got the March 11th no bill from first grand jury and signed Watson on the 20th expecting fully that the decision on the 22nd would reflect the same from the second Grand jury. In my opinion that's all they needed to make the trade.
If there was a concern about fan reaction, it was basically one member of management looking at the other one saying will our fans care? The answer was we don't care if they care!
This was the attitude I banked on when I suggested long time ago trades could be accomplished.
Not trying to be argumentative, but I don't know how anyone outside of the Browns/Watson circle can know what Hardin assured Haslam. However, during an interview, I recall Hardin saying that although he wouldn't mind getting credit for negotiating a $230 million contract, he had nothing to do with the Browns contract negotiation. His role was to handle the civil and criminal matters and he was not involved in business side of Watson's contract negotiations. Take it for what it's worth, but it was during his last 610 interview where he mentioned happy endings.Fully expecting???? That's because Hardin already knew his "influence" extended beyond the first no bill, and with his extraordinary "clairvoyant abilities," assured Haslam that the decision was in the bag.......well before the decision was made.
Hardin had nothing to do with the contract negotiation? The same guy who called ALL 22 women liars publicly and ended up taking a settlement? His word nor credibility go far.Not trying to be argumentative, but I don't know how anyone outside of the Browns/Watson circle can know what Hardin assured Haslam. However, during an interview, I recall Hardin saying that although he wouldn't mind getting credit for negotiating a $230 million contract, he had nothing to do with the Browns contract negotiation. His role was to handle the civil and criminal matters and he was not involved in business side of Watson's contract negotiations. Take it for what it's worth, but it was during his last 610 interview where he mentioned happy endings.
Haslam earlier last year when asked if he knew Hardin said that he knew of him. When in fact, he was hired by and paid by Haslam to defend Pilot Flying J and Flying J's top executive Hazelwood who was bound for jail...........Hardin managed to keep Hazelwood out of jail, and was involved with deferring blame from Haslam altogether for the extensive truck stop fraud which sent all the other top executives to conviction and/or jail. Pilot Flying J truck stops promised truckers the best looking prostitutes. They diverted trucks to their stops promising $60 million scam rebates in diesel gas........rebates never paid as agreed. The Pilot Flying J executives were jailed and Haslam paid off $200 million in penalties, and millions in payoffs............until the statutes of limitations ran out on him. Hardin claimed he knew nothing of the fraud, contrary to evidence presented by some of the executives. Hazelwood always had detailed communications with his immediate boss Haslam regarding the accounting books.Hardin had nothing to do with the contract negotiation? The same guy who called ALL 22 women liars publicly and ended up taking a settlement? His word nor credibility go far.
He has a relationship with Haslam from the flying J issue in the past. Go look it up. He lied about having nothing to do with contract negotiations.
CND, I know you're just posting the articles, but when it comes to the nfl and information, do you trust Maaddi,Florio, or neither?Despite Florio running with it, Maaddi (AP) essentially retracted this statement shortly after he tweeted it out.
********************************************************************************************************************
Report: NFL “more likely” to accept 6-8 game suspension of Deshaun Watson and not appeal
From Rob Maaddi of the Associated Press: “I’m also told the NFL, despite insisting on indefinite suspension, wants to avoid the appeals process — source said ‘a terrible situation for everyone involved’ — so league is more likely to abide by Sue Robinson’s ruling IF she came back with 6-8 games.”
- Not much news has emanated during or after the first day of the Deshaun Watson disciplinary hearing. One specific item of information that has emerged cries out for further analysis and interpretation.
It’s a surprising revelation. If it’s true and accurate (and we’ll defer to Maaddi in that regard), the question becomes what does it mean?
For starters, why would the NFL leak this critical concession? Does it fear that, if Judge Robinson believes the NFL is destined to seize upon an inherently rigged appeal process, she’d be more likely to impose no discipline at all on Watson? After all, that’s the only way under the Collective Bargaining Agreement to prevent any appeal, which would then be resolved by the Commissioner.
It’s hard not to wonder whether it’s all a ruse aimed at getting her to impose some discipline, so that the league could then appeal to the Commissioner, whose employees already have decided that Watson should be suspended for at least a year.
Remember, the Commissioner cannot afford to be perceived as being too lenient with Watson. It would be difficult to sell to anyone the idea that the league has simply accepted something far less than what the NFL wanted, simply to avoid prolonging a “terrible situation.” Given the steps of the process that the NFL and NFL Players Association collectively bargained, the league has the absolute right to take to the Commissioner any decision from Judge Robinson, other than a decision to not discipline Watson at all. Why would the league simply accept Judge Robinson’s decision, if it falls far short of what the league wants?
THE REST OF THE STORY
Truthfully, I have a hard time trusting either. But I tend to respect a "reporter" that is not afraid to reverse their course when they believe they have more credible updated information. Florio, on the other hand, not uncommonly tends to present multiple "definitive" conclusions even within the same article........seemingly so he can eventually point to be correct with one of the outcomes. As you've pointed out in the past, you are good as your sources are. What is fact in all of this is that everyone at one point or another will miss on their sources. In the end, the most important aspect of having trust in the "reporter" of information relates to his overall track record. You've pointed out that my reporting of the Flores issue was somewhat flawed. I would have to agree. Along these lines, over the years, I have been asked by patients and other physicians , "How would you go about choosing/differentiating between a good surgeon vs one not so go." My answer to them................."All surgeons given enough time in practice will have compromised results..............A good surgeon typically has good outcomes with occasional poor ones............while a poor surgeon typically has poor outcomes with occasiolnal good ones."CND, I know you're just posting the articles, but when it comes to the nfl and information, do you trust Maaddi,Florio, or neither?
I remember that now if same could happen to owners of commanders, dolphins and Browns. Owners of raiders, Jags and Texans can be discussed...I haven't heard anyone bring up the name DeBartolo when arguments have been made re. lax punishment of NFL owners. Eddie DeBartolo, owner of the San Francisco 49ers, paid the NFL a $1million fine for his part in a Louisiana gambling scandal and was formally suspended for the 1999 season, after which he was forced to sell the team to his sister. He later made up a story that after the 1999 season, he voluntarily decided to give up the team as a "business decision."
Yeah, it seems like all the insiders want to be as right quickly, but have an out just in case. I guess we will have to wait for a couple of weeks or so. I think everyone will be disappointed honestly. As I mentioned, one side is going to say he got too much time and the other not enough time. I'm thinking 12 games, but wouldn't be surprised if its a year or 6-8 games suspended. The judge probably don't even know yet.Truthfully, I have a hard time trusting either. But I tend to respect a "reporter" that is not afraid to reverse their course when they believe they have more credible updated information. Florio, on the other hand, not uncommonly tends to present multiple "definitive" conclusions even within the same article........seemingly so he can eventually point to be correct with one of the outcomes. As you've pointed out in the past, you are good as your sources are. What is fact in all of this is that everyone at one point or another will miss on their sources. In the end, the most important aspect of having trust in the "reporter" of information relates to his overall track record. You've pointed out that my reporting of the Flores issue was somewhat flawed. I would have to agree. Along these lines, over the years, I have been asked by patients and other physicians , "How would you go about choosing/differentiating between a good surgeon vs one not so go." My answer to them................."All surgeons given enough time in practice will have compromised results..............A good surgeon typically has good outcomes with occasional poor ones............while a poor surgeon typically has poor outcomes with occasiolnal good ones."
Yeah, it seems like all the insiders want to be as right quickly, but have an out just in case. I guess we will have to wait for a couple of weeks or so. I think everyone will be disappointed honestly. As I mentioned, one side is going to say he got too much time and the other not enough time. I'm thinking 12 games, but wouldn't be surprised if its a year or 6-8 games suspended. The judge probably don't even know yet.
Truthfully, I have a hard time trusting either. But I tend to respect a "reporter" that is not afraid to reverse their course when they believe they have more credible updated information. Florio, on the other hand, not uncommonly tends to present multiple "definitive" conclusions even within the same article........seemingly so he can eventually point to be correct with one of the outcomes. As you've pointed out in the past, you are good as your sources are. What is fact in all of this is that everyone at one point or another will miss on their sources. In the end, the most important aspect of having trust in the "reporter" of information relates to his overall track record. You've pointed out that my reporting of the Flores issue was somewhat flawed. I would have to agree. Along these lines, over the years, I have been asked by patients and other physicians , "How would you go about choosing/differentiating between a good surgeon vs one not so go." My answer to them................."All surgeons given enough time in practice will have compromised results..............A good surgeon typically has good outcomes with occasional poor ones............while a poor surgeon typically has poor outcomes with occasiolnal good ones."
I don't want to hold folks like those on the E channel and sports entertainment or Hollywood to the same standards as I do real news. That is where I get disgusted. We have to realize that people like Florio get their paycheck based upon clicks or ratings so they want to be the first rather than the most accurate.
This article as others which reflect much of what Florio has written gives way too much poetic license to the Personal Conduct Policy and the judge's role. The interpretation is such that the procedings should be run like a court of law...............something that the NFL has repeatedly emphasized that it is not trying to substitute. Prehearing "negotiations," decisions will be based only 5 cases, post hearing briefs, creating phantom limitations upon which sides can appeal decisions............only a couple of examples of things not set down in the Personal Conduct Policy. The only set-in-stone function/final decision given to the judge is whether the Personal Conduct Policy has be violated. Beyond that, the NFL has been given virtually total control. This is not a court trial by judge, which cannot be appealed. The judge in this case is only the arbitor of whether a violation of the PCP has taken place. Beyond that, the PCP has not given her any power beyond suggesting punative action..........this is contrary to what Florio stated in his most recent article ["As long as she imposes any discipline whatsoever, the league can appeal to Goodell, who would have final say."...........Robinson cannot "impose" any punishment.] Let alone that her suggested punative action implies that it carries any significant weight in the addressing of appeals from either side.NFL, NFLPA Receive Homework as Deshaun Watson Arbitrator Sets Tone
When retired federal Judge Sue Robinson held the disciplinary hearing for Cleveland Browns QB Deshaun Watson last Tuesday, many expected for her to announce a decision shortly thereafter, and for Watson, the NFL or both to appeal it to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell. Instead, she ordered the...sports.yahoo.com
A disciplinary officer, a member of the league office staff who will be a highly-qualified individual with a criminal justice background, will follow the process outlined below to investigate a potential violation, produce a report and if desired present a disciplinary recommendation for the Commissioner’s consideration. The Commissioner will review the report (and recommendation if presented) and determine the appropriate discipline, if any, to be imposed on the player.
Yeah, it seems like all the insiders want to be as right quickly, but have an out just in case. I guess we will have to wait for a couple of weeks or so. I think everyone will be disappointed honestly. As I mentioned, one side is going to say he got too much time and the other not enough time. I'm thinking 12 games, but wouldn't be surprised if its a year or 6-8 games suspended. The judge probably don't even know yet.
Exactly lolNobody knows anything at this point .... all these talking heads just talking out their tail pipes while we wait for Sue.
Nobody knows anything at this point .... all these talking heads just talking out their tail pipes while we wait for Sue.
Yep. One of the inherent problems with 24 hour news channels and media over-saturation is the lack of credibility and willingness to sacrifice the truth.
Media figures would rather babble for clicks/views than admit that they don't know a damn thing more than the rest of us.
Which is why I'm a big proponent of the OFF button.
This is incorrect. The claims came first before anything. In regards to a possible settlement. And some of the women did file reports.
I wonder if she gave Watson a "massage" when he arrived in Cleveland.JOSINA ANDERSON
OFFICIAL BROWNS View attachment 10356SNIFFER!!!!