Watson refusing to play was well before the allegations became public. He would have been traded and played if not for the allegations. The Texans then didn't want him to be injured and have the blowback from the allegations by the media and public for playing him. Yes, if it weren't for the allegations he would have played a full year somewhere last year. He basically got a 23 game suspension, however, he was paid last year. The monetary mitigation should be higher, but he has sat out over a year due to this situation.
Just because the Texans sent him home doesn't mean that Watsons statement about never wanting to play for the Texans again became null or void.
He had an easy out to get paid to do nothing and forced it because he's got a lot of experience forcing himself. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BryanBusby:
Just because the Texans sent him home doesn't mean that Watsons statement about never wanting to play for the Texans again became null or void.
He had an easy out to get paid to do nothing and forced it because he's got a lot of experience forcing himself.
It's really quite simple, if not for the allegations, he would have played 17 games last year if he stayed healthy. They would have been for the Texans if they worked out their disagreement, or he 100% would have been traded and played for another team. The allegations caused him to miss 17 games last year and another 6 this year. There is little new information. He should have been put on the commissioner's exempt list, but he wasn't. The NFL is in a tough spot now. I don't like Watson or the Browns, and think he should have much more of an economic consequence. However, it is undeniable that these acquisitions and lawsuits will cost him at least 23 games he would have otherwise played. [Reply]
These people are untouchable, they will never get in real trouble no matter what they do. Watson can be a serial killer and nothing will happen to him. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TwistedChief:
The only thing arbitrary is a an arbitrator who says the NFL has no precedent for dealing with someone who has committed acts like Watson and then hands down a ruling that she admits isn't harsher because of prior precedent.
The NFLPA knew that they were ultimately giving the league the final say in these issues. They got more money because of it. No rules of the game have been changed after the fact and this is the game everyone signed up for.
I don't think it's particularly easy doling out punishment as Goodell has been expected to do and lord knows he's made his mistakes. The point of the arbitrator was to produce a more transparent and fair system, but when that arbitrator essentially finds a subject guilty and then points to the prior flawed precedented in determining punishment, the circularity of it is comical.
Good for the NFL for not letting this stand. It was a ridiculous recommendation/ruling to begin with.
You had me up until “good for the nfl.” The arbitrator’s light punishment WAS based on precedent. It just so happens that precedent is with owners, not players. There is a reason the nflpa requested zero games. Daniel Snyder’s shit is every bit as bad. Jerry jones cheerleader scandal is very bad. Robert kraft, while way smaller a deal than Watson was in the same ballpark. These were all very recent.
Do you think the nflpa would have led with 0 games if not for the nfls double standard punishing owners vs players? I think what Watson did should have costed him a season. I also fully understand an arbitrators point of view that a harsh punishment for Watson is disparate punishment vs how they punish themselves. If goodell wouldn’t have shielded the living hell out of his owners, the arbitrator could’ve led with a way harsher penalty. It is the nfls fault, not the arbitrators. And now they become huge hypocrites for recommending something harsher and I hope the nflpa attacks them on it. [Reply]
If you want a fair ruling…
The nfl should impose a stricter penalty on Watson.
The nflpa should then raise a stink about disparate penalties and force the nfl to punish jerry jones and Daniel snyder.
The nfl can now enforce personal conduct consistently knowing that everyone is held to a similar standard.
And all these standards matter in a league that must enforce competitive balance. Instead, one team is going to lose draft picks for minor tampering charges while two teams caught with criminal sexual misconduct lose nothing. That is absolute horseshit and it’s totally unfair to the dolphins. Just as it was unfair to the saints. Just as it was unfair to the ravens (ray rice), steelers (Big Ben), cowboys (zeke). [Reply]
Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief:
It's really quite simple, if not for the allegations, he would have played 17 games last year if he stayed healthy. They would have been for the Texans if they worked out their disagreement, or he 100% would have been traded and played for another team. The allegations caused him to miss 17 games last year and another 6 this year. There is little new information. He should have been put on the commissioner's exempt list, but he wasn't. The NFL is in a tough spot now. I don't like Watson or the Browns, and think he should have much more of an economic consequence. However, it is undeniable that these acquisitions and lawsuits will cost him at least 23 games he would have otherwise played.
He wasn't placed on the exempt list because the Texans were clear they were going to make a move before the NFL had to.
Sitting at home and collecting nearly 20 million isn't a punishment at all though and should have zero weight on what he deserves to get.
The NFL is only in a bind here because they self-made one so oh well, fuck em. [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
If you want a fair ruling…
The nfl should impose a stricter penalty on Watson.
The nflpa should then raise a stink about disparate penalties and force the nfl to punish jerry jones and Daniel snyder.
The nfl can now enforce personal conduct consistently knowing that everyone is held to a similar standard.
And all these standards matter in a league that must enforce competitive balance. Instead, one team is going to lose draft picks for minor tampering charges while two teams caught with criminal sexual misconduct lose nothing. That is absolute horseshit and it’s totally unfair to the dolphins. Just as it was unfair to the saints. Just as it was unfair to the ravens (ray rice), steelers (Big Ben), cowboys (zeke).
The Dolphins owner tampered with Tom Brady while he was a part of two different teams and also did the same with Sean Payton.
Not even bringing up the fact that he clearly wanted the team to tank.
There's nothing minor about Stephen Ross's tampering. [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
You had me up until “good for the nfl.” The arbitrator’s light punishment WAS based on precedent. It just so happens that precedent is with owners, not players. There is a reason the nflpa requested zero games. Daniel Snyder’s shit is every bit as bad. Jerry jones cheerleader scandal is very bad. Robert kraft, while way smaller a deal than Watson was in the same ballpark. These were all very recent.
Do you think the nflpa would have led with 0 games if not for the nfls double standard punishing owners vs players? I think what Watson did should have costed him a season. I also fully understand an arbitrators point of view that a harsh punishment for Watson is disparate punishment vs how they punish themselves. If goodell wouldn’t have shielded the living hell out of his owners, the arbitrator could’ve led with a way harsher penalty. It is the nfls fault, not the arbitrators. And now they become huge hypocrites for recommending something harsher and I hope the nflpa attacks them on it.
The precedent she was relying upon had nothing to do with the owners. That's what you're missing. She was completely relying upon punishment for players.
Strike the owners from your mind because that wasn't part of the ruling. Then tell me if Watson was punished appropriately relative to others. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TwistedChief:
The Dolphins owner tampered with Tom Brady while he was a part of two different teams and also did the same with Sean Payton.
Not even bringing up the fact that he clearly wanted the team to tank.
There's nothing minor about Stephen Ross's tampering.
The dolphins got caught doing something many teams do. It’s like punishing a college for bribing players. And that’s punishable. Except it’s very small potatoes compared to other owners participating in and covering up sex crimes and getting 0 punishment for it. If you aren’t gonna punish snyder or jerry jones, it’s absurd to punish Ross.
This isn’t a normal business where punishing a CFO hurts the whole team. We are talking about a competitive advantage that the cowboys and redskins lose draft picks while another nfl team loses theirs. There’s a reason equitable punishment is crucial in the nfl. And it’s even worse when you have an owner like Robert kraft that likes to play God and raises hell for max punishment for other teams while whining about any kind of enforcement to his own team. [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
The dolphins got caught doing something many teams do. It’s like punishing a college for bribing players. And that’s punishable. Except it’s very small potatoes compared to other owners participating in and covering up sex crimes and getting 0 punishment for it. If you aren’t gonna punish snyder or jerry jones, it’s absurd to punish Ross.
This isn’t a normal business where punishing a CFO hurts the whole team. We are talking about a competitive advantage that the cowboys and redskins lose draft picks while another nfl team loses theirs. There’s a reason equitable punishment is crucial in the nfl. And it’s even worse when you have an owner like Robert kraft that likes to play God and raises hell for max punishment for other teams while whining about any kind of enforcement to his own team.
Many teams spend multiple offseasons courting other teams' star players and offer them ownership stakes? Source?
We lost a 3rd and a 6th for a single instance of Jeremy Maclin tampering.
Stop with your nonsense about the owners. It's a completely separate discussion (and I'm not disagreeing with you about it but it doesn't change anything we're discussing). [Reply]
Originally Posted by TwistedChief:
The precedent she was relying upon had nothing to do with the owners. That's what you're missing. She was completely relying upon punishment for players.
Strike the owners from your mind because that wasn't part of the ruling. Then tell me if Watson was punished appropriately relative to others.
I disagree. We all know this was a soft punishment. She intentionally made it very soft forcing the nfls hand to appeal.
Sue Robinson could have easily split the difference and called for a half season. She favored the nflpa. Why would she do that for a player whose behavior is blatantly worse than other players accused of the same shit? The nflpa has easy accusations of discrimination and I’d have to imagine she was well aware of that. And the nflpa, Watson and browns have made it very clear they would bring a federal lawsuit if they made it 1 year. Why else would they, except to complain about disparate punishment.
And I am guessing the nflpa will fight like hell to break the standard that goodell can overrule an arbiters ruling. What was the meaning of this pointless exercise if goodell can do whatever the f he wants anyway? There’s no way the nflpa wants goodell to have that kind of power to arbitrarily dictate punishment and why wouldn’t they. [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
I disagree. We all know this was a soft punishment. She intentionally made it very soft forcing the nfls hand to appeal.
Sue Robinson could have easily split the difference and called for a half season. She favored the nflpa. Why would she do that for a player whose behavior is blatantly worse than other players accused of the same shit?
Because she used the precedent of guys like Ezekiel Elliot who was suspended for 6 games?
I feel like you're overthinking this.
I get what you're saying, but I'm not of the opinion this was some staged decision. I think she looked at everything, the mitigating factors (violent vs non-violent), and made some vague ruling.
I can't imagine her main goal was to encourage the NFL to appeal. In what world does she come across as looking good in that scenario. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TwistedChief:
Because she used the precedent of guys like Ezekiel Elliot who was suspended for 6 games?
I feel like you're overthinking this.
I get what you're saying, but I'm not of the opinion this was some staged decision. I think she looked at everything, the mitigating factors (violent vs non-violent), and made some vague ruling.
I can't imagine her main goal was to encourage the NFL to appeal. In what world does she come across as looking good in that scenario.
But none of this is unexpected. She knew the nfl would appeal 6 games. She knew the public would say it’s way too light (where everybody said zeke got way too much). It seems to me an intentionally soft judgment. She made this call knowing goodell would overrule it and do his own thing. And she knew the backlash which doesn’t make her look good either. Not to mention I’m sure as a former federal judge she can’t be a fan of watsons behavior. So in the face of all this, why would she tilt her favor big time to the nflpa? She could have easily gone higher and not only been praised by the public, but she’d have basis to do so. Watson was a serial predator benchmarked to a guy who was “alleged” to have done something improper once. She could have easily justified 8 which wouldn’t have tilted to either side.
Maybe it’s an extreme safe play. But isn’t it possible that she wanted to avoid nflpa lawsuit? And what else would the nflpa be suing about except for disparate punishment - undoubtedly the reason they led with 0 games punishment knowing how crazy it sounded when they could have easily led with 4. It seems to add up that the nflpa was and probably still is going to hang it over the nfls heads. The timing of Ross getting punished doesn’t seem like a coincidence. Doesn’t that feel like the nfl trying to pretend like they actually punish owners? Why did that happen immediately after the Watson ruling?
Anyway, always fun discussing things with you. Thanks for keeping this civil even if we disagree. [Reply]