Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
To paraphrase the best show of all time, "so one gambling wide receiver trumps 24 sexual assaults. Good to know."
Why are people surprised by this?
If Ridley pulled that stunt in baseball, he would have been permanently exiled. If anything, the NFL is more lenient.
The integrity of the product is everything in professional sports. Leagues run on fans believing what they see is genuine.
As much as folks complain about how criminals are allowed to stay in the NFL and they won't watch, people still watch. Maybe if millions of fans stop watching and buying, the NFL will deal out harsher punishments. Until then, gambling punishments will always be harsher.
Vick was allowed back. People kept watching. Hardy was allowed back. Same deal. Big Ben was redeemed. Viewership went up. [Reply]
As for Watson, the NFL is probably going to run on the same concept that none of these incidents were proven. They are all allegations and nearly every single lady has been settling.
Personally, I think he is guilty of something but all the settlements gave the judge an out. The NFL will probably try the same path. [Reply]
If you have to put in the ruling that Deshaun Watson is only allowed to utilize the Browns’ massage therapists, then maybe he should be getting suspended more than 6 games. pic.twitter.com/RsA6kDqRpM
Originally Posted by Razaele:
You think Watson is a bankable star? I guess we'll watch all the endorsement deals roll in now? All sorts of companies and charities lining up to make him the face of their brand, eh?
He is a young black star QB in a league that is often accused of discrimination.
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
To paraphrase the best show of all time, "so one gambling wide receiver trumps 24 sexual assaults. Good to know."
Roger Goodell was able to unilaterally punish Ridley, which he wasn't able to do with Watson as his punishment was decided by the joint NFL/NFLPA disciplinary officer.
The NFL wanted at least a year long suspension for Watson, the NFLPA wanted no suspension. [Reply]
The idea that Watson served a de facto suspension in Houston last year is folly. People, he didn't want to play for the Texans and was paid to not do so. That is not a suspension. Please.
1) While he did get paid to sit on his ass to do nothing, that was a decision the Texans made and they didn't have to make that decision. Paying Watson kept alive a situation where Watson wouldn't be totally checked out should it have come about that he was cleared of his supposed crimes or a team did actually decide to make an offer for him.
2) These players, while it's a lot about the money, are also about legacy and career achievements. Watson may have not wanted to play for the Texans, but I can pretty well guarantee he sure as hell would have played if given the opportunity to do so because the chances of him being traded last season were very near zero.
3) There was nothing saying the Texans couldn't play Watson had they chosen to. So, yes, the Texans did issue a pseudo-suspension in putting him on the NFI list every week, especially if you think about what I said in 2.
4) While Watson undoubtedly did something, and maybe to multiple of his accusers, he was not indicted by a grand jury and is formally guilty of nothing criminally. So, I think you have to factor that into any "he should have got this" mentality.
5) I certainly think there was evidence of conduct detrimental to the league, even if there wasn't enough there to prove criminal conduct. While I'm okay-ish with the suspension, and I do think it's too short, there should have been some significant fines to go along with it. That said, the NFL's personal conduct policy dictates what those fines will be and his contract was structured this year to hedge against this very thing. So, Watson comes out smelling a relative rose and we're left wondering why. [Reply]
Originally Posted by kccrow:
Tweets like that are kind of reeruned in my eyes.
1) While he did get paid to sit on his ass to do nothing, that was a decision the Texans made and they didn't have to make that decision. Paying Watson kept alive a situation where Watson wouldn't be totally checked out should it have come about that he was cleared of his supposed crimes or a team did actually decide to make an offer for him.
2) These players, while it's a lot about the money, are also about legacy and career achievements. Watson may have not wanted to play for the Texans, but I can pretty well guarantee he sure as hell would have played if given the opportunity to do so because the chances of him being traded last season were very near zero.
3) There was nothing saying the Texans couldn't play Watson had they chosen to. So, yes, the Texans did issue a pseudo-suspension in putting him on the NFI list every week, especially if you think about what I said in 2.
4) While Watson undoubtedly did something, and maybe to multiple of his accusers, he was not indicted by a grand jury and is formally guilty of nothing criminally. So, I think you have to factor that into any "he should have got this" mentality.
5) I certainly think there was evidence of conduct detrimental to the league, even if there wasn't enough there to prove criminal conduct. While I'm okay-ish with the suspension, and I do think it's too short, there should have been some significant fines to go along with it. That said, the NFL's personal conduct policy dictates what those fines will be and his contract was structured this year to hedge against this very thing. So, Watson comes out smelling a relative rose and we're left wondering why.
The dude announced in February that he was going to sit out the 2021 season if he wasn’t traded by the Texans. When the allegations came out the Texans basically said “cool with us” [Reply]