3 minutes ago, KJP said:

Are you not the least bit curious why they all have the same slime-ball attorney who is tight with the owner of the Texans? Do you also not realize that at least of them are prostitutes? That certainly doesn't excuse Watson. If my son hired a hooker, I'd kick his a$$. But let's not pretend there's an honorable side to those involved in this case.

 

Where are you seeing this?

10 minutes ago, X said:

 

All I see in that article is a bunch of disingenuous handwaving.

 

I'm interested to hear a lawyer's take on it, such as from @YABO713

13 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

What force was used? I did not see any claim of force. Seriously, I don't know so I'm asking.

He forced at least two women to give him oral sex, forcibly kissed a woman, and groped multiple. While I haven't read any graphic specifics (i.e. did he grab their heads, hair, necks, push them against a wall, etc), you can't possibly give this predator the benefit of the doubt.

Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt.

I don't usually agree with Peter Pattakos on much - but my first thought when Buzbee announced the new claim and that the Texans would be name was "wowwwww they're grasping now." (I sent that exact text to someone after reading the allegation). 

 

For one, from my understanding, this woman's testimony was submitted to the grand jury, and her allegations constitutes blatant sexual assault in Texas. So there must have been substantial mitigating evidence presented by the Plaintiff's attorneys which show that it was highly unlikely that the alleged conduct occurred. If I'm wrong and this wasn't presented,  then Buzbee looks like a scum bag for not referring this criminally, because again, this conduct, if true, is CLEARLY sexual assault. Moreover, a criminal conviction lays the foundation for a civil settlement. A criminal referral would've bolstered the Plaintiff's case here substantially. 

 

Finally, naming the Texans, imo, shows that plaintiff's counsel thinks they are losing the battle and want to add another party with deeper pockets. In this instance, the Texans are going to be 10x more likely to settle than Deshaun. 

 

It's complicated and honestly just sickening all around. But I've talked to a couple people in the league that think Watson is getting dragged unnecessarily. 

1 hour ago, KJP said:

 

Are you not the least bit curious why they all have the same slime-ball attorney who is tight with the owner of the Texans? Is it not possible that some of them are prostitutes? That certainly doesn't excuse Watson. If my son hired a hooker, I'd kick his a$$. But let's not pretend there's an honorable side to those involved in this case. As far as I'm concerned everybody is guilty and everybody is innocent. I don't know what happened there I wasn't there so I'm not going to come to any conclusions. I actually find it kind of frightening how strong some of the opinions are about this from people who weren't there either.

 

 

What force was used? I did not see any claim of force. Seriously, I don't know so I'm asking.

“Watson then stood up and continued masturbating more aggressively,” the suit claims. “As he did so, Watson asked the Plaintiff, ‘Where do you want me to put it?’ Plaintiff by this point was in complete shock and could not speak. She froze. Watson quickly ejaculated; some of his ejaculate got on Plaintiff’s chest and face.”

6 minutes ago, bumsquare said:

“Watson then stood up and continued masturbating more aggressively,” the suit claims. “As he did so, Watson asked the Plaintiff, ‘Where do you want me to put it?’ Plaintiff by this point was in complete shock and could not speak. She froze. Watson quickly ejaculated; some of his ejaculate got on Plaintiff’s chest and face.”

 

Yeah - this is my point @bumsquare - this conduct CLEARLY constitutes sexual assault under Texas law. Normally testimony of this kind of conduct alone would be enough to get an indictment. That's why I think there has to be some mitigating evidence to show this conduct didn't occur. 

 

And if this hasn't been referred for criminal prosecution, the Buzbee should be ashamed, morally and as an attorney, as Watson should definitely be indicted and this would be the perfect basis for a stronger civil case. 

Just now, YABO713 said:

 

Yeah - this is my point @bumsquare - this conduct CLEARLY constitutes sexual assault under Texas law. Normally testimony of this kind of conduct alone would be enough to get an indictment. That's why I think there has to be some mitigating evidence to show this conduct didn't occur. 

 

And if this hasn't been referred for criminal prosecution, the Buzbee should be ashamed, morally and as an attorney, as Watson should definitely be indicted and this would be the perfect basis for a stronger civil case. 

Other than testimony, which is "he said she said" is there any physical evidence?  I thought I had read somewhere that there was DNA on some of the plantiffs' clothing.  If there is physical evidence, that's pretty damning.  If not, I'm sorry but the number of women filing claims against a very wealthy athlete does not constitute guilt to me.

I'm not saying I don't believe that it happened but evidence beyond testimony please.  

6 minutes ago, Chazz Michael Michaels said:

Other than testimony, which is "he said she said" is there any physical evidence?  I thought I had read somewhere that there was DNA on some of the plantiffs' clothing.  If there is physical evidence, that's pretty damning.  If not, I'm sorry but the number of women filing claims against a very wealthy athlete does not constitute guilt to me.

I'm not saying I don't believe that it happened but evidence beyond testimony please.  

 

I'd ask everyone to at least consider this...

 

I can't consider a case I've ever worked on or one I've heard of where there are this many plaintiffs and no substantial evidence of guilt. At a certain point, it starts to look bad when plaintiffs join without introducing material evidence. 

 

Again, I don't consider Deshaun Watson's conduct admirable, moral, or right... and he is very likely a creep that tried to use his fame for sexual favors. But none of the evidence presented so far is enough to strip him of his ability to play in the NFL, imo, much less restrict his liberty. 

15 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

 

Yeah - this is my point @bumsquare - this conduct CLEARLY constitutes sexual assault under Texas law. Normally testimony of this kind of conduct alone would be enough to get an indictment. That's why I think there has to be some mitigating evidence to show this conduct didn't occur. 

 

And if this hasn't been referred for criminal prosecution, the Buzbee should be ashamed, morally and as an attorney, as Watson should definitely be indicted and this would be the perfect basis for a stronger civil case. 

Do you really think you can read that much into what the grand jury is doing? I get what you're saying, but to me it's more plausible that the grand jury made a serious error than that a bunch of women with the same basic core of allegations were lying and lying in a way that is obvious to grand jury members but not to us.

 

To me the allegations just make too much sense. And Watson's lawyer has conceded them in a sense, admitting that Watson had sexual contact (consensual) with some masseuses and stating that happy endings aren't illegal. Clearly Watson was reaching out to a ton of inexperienced masseuses in Instagram because he was interested in the quality of something other than the massage. It's possible that he met up with the women and said "excuse me ma'am. While I called you here for a massage, I'm really interested in some consensual sexual activity. If you accept that would be wonderful, and if not, then please just don't tell anyone about this."

 

Maybe that's what happened and everyone alleging sexual imposition was just lying. Hard for me to believe.

Legal standards vs ethical and common sense ones.

 

Reminds me of a lot of Catholic priests free due to a lack of evidence. Sure as hell doesn't make them innocent.

9 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

 

I'd ask everyone to at least consider this...

 

I can't consider a case I've ever worked on or one I've heard of where there are this many plaintiffs and no substantial evidence of guilt. At a certain point, it starts to look bad when plaintiffs join without introducing material evidence. 

 

Again, I don't consider Deshaun Watson's conduct admirable, moral, or right... and he is very likely a creep that tried to use his fame for sexual favors. But none of the evidence presented so far is enough to strip him of his ability to play in the NFL, imo, much less restrict his liberty. 

I will of course defer to the pro, but isn’t sexual assault notoriously hard to prosecute in general? Specifically because there is often a lack of material evidence? 
 

In any case, it’s almost comforting to see the Browns return to their familiar nadir of incompetence. Haslam has to be one of the all time worst owners in all of professional sports.

6 minutes ago, bumsquare said:

I will of course defer to the pro, but isn’t sexual assault notoriously hard to prosecute in general? Specifically because there is often a lack of material evidence? 
 

In any case, it’s almost comforting to see the Browns return to their familiar nadir of incompetence. Haslam has to be one of the all time worst owners in all of professional sports.

In some cases, sure. But it’s not particularly hard to get an indictment on, and I think that’s a key distinction. Moreover, it’s usually the type of charge where a lesser-included charge, ie gross sexual imposition or something similar can still be prosecuted, even if it falls short of assault.

 

it’s tough, regardless

37 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

Do you really think you can read that much into what the grand jury is doing? I get what you're saying, but to me it's more plausible that the grand jury made a serious error than that a bunch of women with the same basic core of allegations were lying and lying in a way that is obvious to grand jury members but not to us.

 

To me the allegations just make too much sense. And Watson's lawyer has conceded them in a sense, admitting that Watson had sexual contact (consensual) with some masseuses and stating that happy endings aren't illegal. Clearly Watson was reaching out to a ton of inexperienced masseuses in Instagram because he was interested in the quality of something other than the massage. It's possible that he met up with the women and said "excuse me ma'am. While I called you here for a massage, I'm really interested in some consensual sexual activity. If you accept that would be wonderful, and if not, then please just don't tell anyone about this."

 

Maybe that's what happened and everyone alleging sexual imposition was just lying. Hard for me to believe.

 

No I agree and get what you're saying. My gut tells me at least 5-6 of these girls experienced unwelcome sexual contact. My gut also tells me that the Plaintiff's attorneys were very aggressive in recruiting some of the other women, and convinced them to join. 

 

But my gut isn't a reliable metric lol. 

54 minutes ago, TBideon said:

Legal standards vs ethical and common sense ones.

 

Reminds me of a lot of Catholic priests free due to a lack of evidence. Sure as hell doesn't make them innocent.

I understand the analogy but we are talking about grown women not children.  The legal standard should be more applicable here.

Again, I'd like to know if there is any physical evidence.

Thinking this through a little more, contemporaneous notes (text messages send to friends or family) would seemingly be pretty damning

If it is just testimony, sorry - not good enough 

1 hour ago, YABO713 said:

 

No I agree and get what you're saying. My gut tells me at least 5-6 of these girls experienced unwelcome sexual contact. My gut also tells me that the Plaintiff's attorneys were very aggressive in recruiting some of the other women, and convinced them to join. 

 

But my gut isn't a reliable metric lol. 

 

Nor is mine. Everyone is innocent and everyone is guilty in every thing I've approached as a journalist. And even after a case is decided by a jury and affirmed on appeal, there's still a part of me that wonders if someone made a mistake somewhere along the way. And yes, some of my very best sources for the NEOtrans blog have passed along bad info sometimes. It's why it troubles me when someone says "that dude is guilty as sin" without having any apparent insider knowledge. It's also why I changed my post earlier today from a statement to a question of whether some of the masseuses where prostitutes as alleged in the article and as some have alleged elsewhere in media reports. It wouldn't be a surprise to me. People my age and older may remember those massage parlors in Warren and Ashtabula that advertised in Cleveland newspapers back in the 80s and 90s were eventually shut down as whorehouses. So it's not a shock to me if some of these ladies in this case were diversified in their services.

 

BTW, I've not been impressed with Jimmy Haslam (his wife Dee seems more adept) until he hired Andrew Berry.

I don't understand posters continually defending this creep. It completely contradicts conversations we had when the 26 women whom Trump sexually assaulted came forward. Why were they more credible than the massage therapists whom Watson preyed upon. We weren't talking about legal standards then, just common sense based on smoke and fire. 

 

And no matter some archaic stigma, these women were not prostitutes working in brothels.

 

I completely believe Trump's victims but just can't understand why you guys are bending over backwards to mitigate Watson's actions.

2 hours ago, TBideon said:

I don't understand posters continually defending this creep. It completely contradicts conversations we had when the 26 women whom Trump sexually assaulted came forward. Why were they more credible than the massage therapists whom Watson preyed upon. We weren't talking about legal standards then, just common sense based on smoke and fire. 

 

And no matter some archaic stigma, these women were not prostitutes working in brothels.

 

I completely believe Trump's victims but just can't understand why you guys are bending over backwards to mitigate Watson's actions.

Idk if you’re referring to me, but I’m not defending him. I’m just pointing out that there are very real holes in most of these allegations.

 

Imo this suit would’ve been much stronger with 5-6 women

4 hours ago, TBideon said:

I don't understand posters continually defending this creep. It completely contradicts conversations we had when the 26 women whom Trump sexually assaulted came forward. Why were they more credible than the massage therapists whom Watson preyed upon. We weren't talking about legal standards then, just common sense based on smoke and fire. 

 

And no matter some archaic stigma, these women were not prostitutes working in brothels.

 

I completely believe Trump's victims but just can't understand why you guys are bending over backwards to mitigate Watson's actions.

 

Why would you completely believe or disbelieve in anyone, especially someone you've never met or not personally witnessed what they've been accused of doing? Everyone is allowed to be defended until all due process has been exhausted. Do you somehow believe that only guilty people get accused of wrongdoing or innocent people never do? Only one thing troubles me as much as violent sex crimes against the vulnerable (a crime I consider worse than murder) -- accusing people of such crimes without justification. If the accused is innocent, his/her life is destroyed. Is that the case here? No one but Deshaun Watson and his accusers know that for certain. Anyone else who says they know without foundation are the people who bother me as much as those who are proven guilty without controversy. So that's the only opinion I'll have unless and until this matter is sorted out.

Same reason I believe Trumps's 26 accusers: Because common sense, context, and a totality of circumstances play a part in making judgments. The fact that Trump was not criminally prosecuted does not make me believe he's innocent; the same applies with Watson. 

Edited June 10, 20223 yr by TBideon

Not everyone agrees on what constitutes common sense. Common sense is often a matter of opinion. I am more inclined to believe Trump's accusers because of Trump's overall character and behavior. But because I do not know anything about his accusers or their character, I cannot say I believe in them either.

 

Anyway, I'm looking forward to football season. Go Browns.

23 hours ago, KJP said:

Are you not the least bit curious why they all have the same slime-ball attorney who is tight with the owner of the Texans? Is it not possible that some of them are prostitutes? That certainly doesn't excuse Watson. If my son hired a hooker, I'd kick his a$$. But let's not pretend there's an honorable side to those involved in this case. As far as I'm concerned everybody is guilty and everybody is innocent. I don't know what happened there I wasn't there so I'm not going to come to any conclusions. I actually find it kind of frightening how strong some of the opinions are about this from people who weren't there either.

 

Sports fandom is a helluva drug.

21 hours ago, YABO713 said:

Again, I don't consider Deshaun Watson's conduct admirable, moral, or right... and he is very likely a creep that tried to use his fame for sexual favors. But none of the evidence presented so far is enough to strip him of his ability to play in the NFL, imo, much less restrict his liberty. 

 

Let's assume this is correct.  He's a creep who sought massages from at least 66 women in a year and a half period, massages that often turned sexual in nature.  And let's assume, legally, he won't be indicted.

 

The guy didn't play in all of 2021.

 

The Browns *STILL* gave up three 1st round picks (and a 3rd in 2023 and 4th rounders in 2022 and 2024) and gave him the largest contract with the most guaranteed money in NFL history.  And knew they'd have this headache to deal with.

 

Sure, you can separate this out into a few avenues.

1) Legal

2) Moral

3) Financial

 

Etc. etc.  Even if he didn't have this baggage, is it a good trade?

 

So far, I haven't seen anyone address why there are unnamed women who spoke to the NYTimes (or other outlets) who aren't suing Watson.  They have nothing to gain financially.  If your defense is, "well, not surprised that a bunch of women are suing a high profile, wealthy athlete" how do you explain those women?  They're just making allegations up for fun?

So if he is suspended, do the Browns still have to pay him?

15 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

So if he is suspended, do the Browns still have to pay him?

The very intelligent Browns structured it so he basically doesn’t have a salary in 2022. So even if he misses the whole season, they’re still on the hook for $230mil

59 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Let's assume this is correct.  He's a creep who sought massages from at least 66 women in a year and a half period, massages that often turned sexual in nature.  And let's assume, legally, he won't be indicted.

 

The guy didn't play in all of 2021.

 

The Browns *STILL* gave up three 1st round picks (and a 3rd in 2023 and 4th rounders in 2022 and 2024) and gave him the largest contract with the most guaranteed money in NFL history.  And knew they'd have this headache to deal with.

 

Sure, you can separate this out into a few avenues.

1) Legal

2) Moral

3) Financial

 

Etc. etc.  Even if he didn't have this baggage, is it a good trade?

 

So far, I haven't seen anyone address why there are unnamed women who spoke to the NYTimes (or other outlets) who aren't suing Watson.  They have nothing to gain financially.  If your defense is, "well, not surprised that a bunch of women are suing a high profile, wealthy athlete" how do you explain those women?  They're just making allegations up for fun?

 

If he had no baggage I would've given 3 firsts and a second for him - in a heartbeat

25 minutes ago, bumsquare said:

The very intelligent Browns structured it so he basically doesn’t have a salary in 2022. So even if he misses the whole season, they’re still on the hook for $230mil

 

From my understanding, that contract is voided upon certain triggers. The "guaranteed" money only applies insofar as he is eligible to be on an NFL roster. 

I'm not sure who the bigger creep is - Watson or Haslam.

1 hour ago, YABO713 said:

 

From my understanding, that contract is voided upon certain triggers. The "guaranteed" money only applies insofar as he is eligible to be on an NFL roster. 

I’m sure that’s correct. But I’m pretty sure they convinced him to waive the no trade by structuring the contract in a way that he loses no money from a suspension this year. 

4 hours ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Sports fandom is a helluva drug.

 

Take a look in the mirror. Your bloodthirst in joining the party to destroy someone you don't know only on the words of others you don't know is the destructive drug.

On 6/10/2022 at 2:13 PM, bumsquare said:

The very intelligent Browns structured it so he basically doesn’t have a salary in 2022. So even if he misses the whole season, they’re still on the hook for $230mil

The way the contract was set up, it was expected that Watson would lose some time for the 2022 season.  This is why the contract is for the veteran's minimum in 2022 and back-loaded for the remaining four years.  Comparatively speaking, the financial hit would be "minimal" for the 2022 season for any games missed.  Now, if the suspension is substantially longer (some have referenced the Trevor Bauer two-year suspension) and goes into part if not all of 2023, Watson would be out a A LOT OF MONEY.

27 minutes ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

The way the contract was set up, it was expected that Watson would lose some time for the 2022 season.  This is why the contract is for the veteran's minimum in 2022 and back-loaded for the remaining four years.  Comparatively speaking, the financial hit would be "minimal" for the 2022 season for any games missed.  Now, if the suspension is substantially longer (some have referenced the Trevor Bauer two-year suspension) and goes into part if not all of 2023, Watson would be out a A LOT OF MONEY.

I dont think looking at it from the Treavor Bauer perspective is the right way to think about it. I think the Browns baked in the fact he would lose a certain number of games to a suspension this year, but I think they were thinking along the lines of a Rothlisberger type of suspension and Watson would have 12 games to get the Browns a playoff bid and then make a run.  Right now, 4 games sounds like optimistic thinking. What is concerning about a longer term suspension is that on top of Watson, the Browns have spent big to pretty much go all in this year. If Watson is suspended for the full season and Brissett is the QB, the Browns go from Super Bowl contender to lucky to make the playoffs.  Now 2023 comes around and you get Watson back. Is he the same QB after a 2 year layoff, or does he need another season to find his game again. Garrett is a year older. Chubb is a year older. Do any other key players get hurt? Can they keep all their key players after 2022 with the salary cap?  Now add that they gave up a ton of draft capital to get Watson.  

The money that is guaranteed is one thing, but to me the bigger problem is missing a year of Watson when they are primed to win this year. 

Why not file a police report first?

 

 

 

the texans set the players up with a hooker massage joint and watson takes them up on it. ok.

 

and yes, back to the browns.

 

 

***

 

looks like seattle will hold out for garoppolo -- latest is talks continue with the panthers for mayfield:

 

https://www.si.com/nfl/panthers/gm-report/trade-talks-continue-between-panthers-browns-for-baker-mayfield

On 6/12/2022 at 11:27 PM, Brutus_buckeye said:

I dont think looking at it from the Treavor Bauer perspective is the right way to think about it. I think the Browns baked in the fact he would lose a certain number of games to a suspension this year, but I think they were thinking along the lines of a Rothlisberger type of suspension and Watson would have 12 games to get the Browns a playoff bid and then make a run.  Right now, 4 games sounds like optimistic thinking. What is concerning about a longer term suspension is that on top of Watson, the Browns have spent big to pretty much go all in this year. If Watson is suspended for the full season and Brissett is the QB, the Browns go from Super Bowl contender to lucky to make the playoffs.  Now 2023 comes around and you get Watson back. Is he the same QB after a 2 year layoff, or does he need another season to find his game again. Garrett is a year older. Chubb is a year older. Do any other key players get hurt? Can they keep all their key players after 2022 with the salary cap?  Now add that they gave up a ton of draft capital to get Watson.  

The money that is guaranteed is one thing, but to me the bigger problem is missing a year of Watson when they are primed to win this year. 

I just mentioned it as that what others have been speculating in the sporting world concerning the Bauer comparison.  As for a Rothlisberger-type suspension, the whole "climate" of sports has changed and despite how clueless the Browns ownership is, they should have known better.  By going through this whole debacle, the organization has shafted themselves:  public opinion of the deal is awful, severe salary-cap limitations for four seasons, ticking off other organizations for raising the salary bar for quarterbacks league-wide, especially if the suspension is lengthy, they have traded away excessive draft capital and will all of the rest of the team be able to deliver what they have done in the past.  If 2022 was "the year" for the Browns, if Watson is gone for most or all if it, the window may slam shut next season.

It is interestign that Baker is not seriously being considered to be the starter should Watson be suspended. You have to figure he is a better option than Brissett. 

 

I have been hearing stories that while he was injured last year, the Browns saw a lot on tape that they did not like about Mayfield from his decision making that make them want to move on from him.  The Browns front office is being quiet and allowing Baker to use the injury as a reason for his decline last year, but they apparently saw a lot of things that he did wrong where the injury did not have much to do with it. 

I'm sharing this without clicking on because I don't want to give the Post clicks/views. But I'm sharing this because someone might be interested enough....

 

 

5 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

It is interestign that Baker is not seriously being considered to be the starter should Watson be suspended. You have to figure he is a better option than Brissett. 

 

I have been hearing stories that while he was injured last year, the Browns saw a lot on tape that they did not like about Mayfield from his decision making that make them want to move on from him.  The Browns front office is being quiet and allowing Baker to use the injury as a reason for his decline last year, but they apparently saw a lot of things that he did wrong where the injury did not have much to do with it. 

After everything that has gone on, Mayfield wants nothing to do with the Browns.  As for the Browns letting Mayfield use the injury as a reason, they might as well.  There were questionable play calls made and they could have also overruled Mayfield in his desire to play, unless an injured Mayfield was better than a healthy Keenum.  If that was the real mindset, it doesn't say much for the opinion of having Keenum on the team in the first place.  Finally, a good part of the offensive line was a mess last year.  When both starting offensive tackles were either out and lost considerable playing time forcing the team to go with six different tackles, that did affect play.  It didn't help an injured quarterback to face increased pressure.  Chubb missed three games and Hunt missed nine games.  The receivers due to injury and other "issues" didn't help the situation either.

 

In 2020, a healthy Mayfield and a pretty much intact offense (they were better without Beckham than with him) went to the playoffs, and beat Pittsburgh.  If it weren't for the fumble by Higgins against Kansas City, the Browns would have been in the AFC Championship Game against Buffalo--with Mayfield at the helm.  What is not to like with those results?

Edited June 14, 20223 yr by LifeLongClevelander

13 hours ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

In 2020, a healthy Mayfield and a pretty much intact offense (they were better without Beckham than with him) went to the playoffs, and beat Pittsburgh.  If it weren't for the fumble by Higgins against Kansas City, the Browns would have been in the AFC Championship Game against Buffalo--with Mayfield at the helm.  What is not to like with those results?

I get why Mayfield does not want to play for the Browns, and that he has a guaranteed contract too but, I think it behooves him long term to step in and perform for them if Watson is suspended.  If he comes in and performs back to 2020 standards, then he will be a hot free agent and demand big money on the open market the following year. If he sits out all season and does not play, he is a second tier free agent. As much as he hates the Browns, he is better playing for them then not playing if he has anything to say about it. 

From everything I've heard, the Browns have no interest in having him play.  They're worried about the drama that could create.  The Browns, you see, are big on avoiding drama.

We just going to ignore the fact that Jacoby Brisett isn't a major steps down from Mayfield? 

7 minutes ago, X said:

From everything I've heard, the Browns have no interest in having him play.  They're worried about the drama that could create.  The Browns, you see, are big on avoiding drama.

Ha, ha. 

In all seriousness, I get why the Browns would not want him out there, regarding the drama part, but you think he could win you more games than Brissett. 

You would think that Mayfield would be willing to bury the hatchet at least for one more season to "prove it" to the next team and earn a long term contract as well as sticking it to the Browns on his way out of town. Mayfield has always carried himself with a swagger and chip on his shoulder that tries to prove people wrong. It seems as if in this case, he is just cowering in a corner sucking his thumb.

1 minute ago, YABO713 said:

We just going to ignore the fact that Jacoby Brisett isn't a major steps down from Mayfield? 

Brissett is a capable backup who can start when needed and perform competently. Mayfield, especially when healthy is better. Brissett on his best is a starter on a bottom tier, rebuilding team. Mayfield, while not a top tier QB is perfectly competent to lead a team to the playoffs. He did in 2020, and despite his setbacks last year, the Browns were in the hunt for the division until Christmas. 

Strong arguments against Watson...

 

 

 

On 6/15/2022 at 9:10 AM, X said:

From everything I've heard, the Browns have no interest in having him play.  They're worried about the drama that could create.  The Browns, you see, are big on avoiding drama.

 

and from everything i see, the browns also remain very good at keeping their fanbase, even despite hand-wringing threats to the contrary.

3 hours ago, mrnyc said:

 

and from everything i see, the browns also remain very good at keeping their fanbase, even despite hand-wringing threats to the contrary.

 

A dumpster fire can also draw a crowd.  Doesn't mean they're fans of flaming garbage.

 

Quote

The league “probably” will seek a suspension of one full season for Watson, a person on Watson’s side of the case said Friday. A person familiar with the league’s view of the case cautioned to be “careful” about specifying a precise length at this point for the suspension the NFL will seek. But that person also said: “Significant would be the proper term.”

 

Edited June 17, 20222 yr by DarkandStormy

Oops. Guess he should've played last year rather than sat out. He's going to have significant rust if/when he returns...

 

 

[facepalm emoji]