Jump to content

2022-23 NFL Thread


Pariah

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, Starlord said:

 

 

And it's 6 games - I understand he's already sat out a year but it's still not enough IMO

 

https://www.nfl.com/news/deshaun-watson-informed-by-judge-sue-l-robinson-he-should-be-suspended-six-games

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Starlord said:

 

 

And it's 6 games - I understand he's already sat out a year but it's still not enough IMO

 

https://www.nfl.com/news/deshaun-watson-informed-by-judge-sue-l-robinson-he-should-be-suspended-six-games

 

Nope, it's not enough for justice, I agree.  But Robinson is somewhat constrained by prior decisions.

 

What really angers me more, tho, is the gross complicity on the part of the Browns, due to how they structured the contract for this year.  A 1/3 season suspension, when it includes losing 1/3 of the annual salary, is at least financially quite significant.  This?  The Browns made it nothing.

 

But Robinson's punishment can't be based on that, I wouldn't think.

 

OK, yes, it's not even slightly socially acceptable, but I hope a lineman smashes him onto the season-long IL in week 7 or 8.  Nice compound fracture.  Hose the Browns over too, by making it a nice 2 year recovery.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

 

Nope, it's not enough for justice, I agree.  But Robinson is somewhat constrained by prior decisions.

 

What really angers me more, tho, is the gross complicity on the part of the Browns, due to how they structured the contract for this year.  A 1/3 season suspension, when it includes losing 1/3 of the annual salary, is at least financially quite significant.  This?  The Browns made it nothing.

 

But Robinson's punishment can't be based on that, I wouldn't think.

 

OK, yes, it's not even slightly socially acceptable, but I hope a lineman smashes him onto the season-long IL in week 7 or 8.  Nice compound fracture.  Hose the Browns over too, by making it a nice 2 year recovery.  

 

Apparently, he settled 3 more lawsuits within the last 24 hours also...and also got his first signing bonus check for $15 million yesterday.  Yeah, Browns set his 2022 base salary at $1.035 million so he loses about $360 grand.  Abuse pays apparently....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The league could theoretically still appeal the decision, which would put the entire matter on Roger Goodell's desk (or on the desk of one of his designated representatives). If the commissioner is convinced that the punishment is too lenient, the PBA effectively allows him to impose the punishment he finds appropriate. I don't expect it will happen, but it is at least still theoretically possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/1/2022 at 11:27 AM, Pariah said:

The league could theoretically still appeal the decision, which would put the entire matter on Roger Goodell's desk (or on the desk of one of his designated representatives). If the commissioner is convinced that the punishment is too lenient, the PBA effectively allows him to impose the punishment he finds appropriate. I don't expect it will happen, but it is at least still theoretically possible.

 

Never gonna happen.  The league NEEDS to stand by this ruling to show they will respect the process, and NOT simply have it be the first of two bites of the apple to them.  If the league appeals, then they slot a pony nuke into the appeals structure they've just built, and detonate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My, my.  

Stephen Ross, Dolphins owner, fined $1.5M, suspended from all team activities until mid-October, and booted off all committees, can't attend league meetings until 2023.  Dolphins lose their 2023 1st round pick and 2024 3rd.

Tampering.  Multiple times.

 

No punishment for per se tanking but losing a #1 is rather serious, so one kinda has to wonder if the tanking (and Ross did say stuff that COULD be read that way) was an aggravating factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

Never gonna happen.  The league NEEDS to stand by this ruling to show they will respect the process, and NOT simply have it be the first of two bites of the apple to them.  If the league appeals, then they slot a pony nuke into the appeals structure they've just built, and detonate it.

 

OMFG.

 

I don't believe it.

 

I absolutely do not believe it.

 

Adam Schefter is reporting that the league IS going to appeal.  

 

This is no longer about Watson...hey if he gets barred forever, I'm fine with that.  This is about the league, about its policies, about them playing to the PR.  They wanted a process that was not draconian, but now, unsatisfied with the result, they revert.  This is a terrible move, IMO.  This is going to blow up, and blow up HARD, in the NFL's face;  the NFLPA will only take this as a VERY hostile move.

 

This is a key legal issue to me:

 

Quote

CONCLUSION
The NFL may be a “forward-facing” organization, but it is not necessarily a forwardlooking one. Just as the NFL responded to violent conduct after a public outcry, so it seems the NFL is responding to yet another public outcry about Mr. Watson’s conduct. At least in the former situation, the Policy was changed and applied proactively. Here, the NFL is attempting to impose a more dramatic shift in its culture without the benefit of fair notice to - and consistency of consequence for - those in the NFL subject to the Policy.

 

At this point, much though I HATE to say this...I want the NFL to lose, and Watson's suspension remains at 6 games.  Their process is a bloody freaking MESS.  THAT is, I think, the basis for it only being 6 games.  It's true that this is not a *legal* process;  it's a personnel matter, so they can do this...but the optics on this are awful.

 

Another point brought up briefly...if Watson deserves a season, then what should Dan Snyder get?  The entire franchise?  

 

I don't see any chance of a positive outcome now.

a)  The appeal leads to no change in the suspension.  Fan outcry will be MASSIVE, and there will be major blowback against the league as a whole.

b)  The appeal leads to a major suspension.  Then it goes to court.  

  b1)  Because the collective bargaining agreement allows for this, the courts tend to dislike interfering.  With the Robinson report saying the claims were established...the appellate decision would very likely stand.  The NFLPA comes out as a major loser here.  Their almost necessary response would seem to go for much more hardball negociations.

  b2)  On the flip side, the courts may here the case, and say, hey, NFL, this is the process and YOU need to stand by it.  You can change the policy for FUTURE cases but you can't do it retroactively.  In which case, the NFL looks awful.

 

I think this is the final fruit of the utterly botched handling of the Ray Rice case.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another damning angle.

The Dolphins got hit fairly hard for their tampering...not so much Stephen Ross, but the Dolphins.

But none of that was based on the tanking...which the report says WAS expressly said by Ross.  Well, what is 'repeated suggestions to prioritize our draft position' BUT tanking???  

 

So we have another double standard.  The league wants to take the facts from the Watson report and use that aspect to overturn the decision...but since it's an owner, or so it seems...TANKING...possibly the most serious charge (along with cheating) *possible* in a competitive venue...and it's blown off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, consider the optics as follows: 

 

A player places a couple of parlay bets and get suspended for a full season.

 

Another more famous, more visible player has two dozen lawsuits for sexual misconduct and gets a six game suspension.

 

Twenty-four incidents, six games. That's one quarter per incident. That's a 15 minute unpaid timeout for each action that resulted in a lawsuit and a hush-hush settlement.

 

With those optics in mind, I don't think the league had any choice but to appeal the suspension. Otherwise, they come across as soft on misconduct towards women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get that part, but consider the optics that Ross gets no explicit punishment for tanking, versus the bettor's suspension.

 

And the optics of claiming to create a new system, only to throw the entire process out the window as soon as they don't get what they want.

 

The Watson punishment didn't fit the level of violations....but the league is also trying for a massive escalation of those punishments arbitrarily as well.  There are 2 sides...the ethical side says, hope you burn in hell;  the legal side says, you don't have the right to escalate the violation post facto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So  Goodell appointed someone else.  Probably wise.

But the power to appoint unilaterally is itself a biased process.  Ms. Robinson was a jointly appointed individual.  The person hearing the appeal is not;  it's strictly Lord Roger's choice.

 

And one can *readily* argue it's problematic.  

 

Quote

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell on Thursday designated former New Jersey attorney general Peter C. Harvey to hear the league's appeal of Cleveland Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson's six-game suspension for violating the league's personal-conduct policy, NFL Network Insider Mike Garafolo reported.

"Mr. Harvey served as the Attorney General of New Jersey and is now a partner at the Paterson Belknap firm in New York," the league said Thursday in a statement. "He has also served as a federal prosecutor. He has deep expertise in criminal law, including domestic violence and sexual assault, and has advised the NFL and other professional leagues on the development and implementation of workplace policies, including the NFL's Personal Conduct Policy. Mr. Harvey has also served as the Commissioner's designee in other arbitrations."

 

A federal prosecutor in the areas of violence and sexual assault?  I concede the expertise...but how does his past as a former prosecutor influence his consideration?  Prosecutors *tend* to lean to the side of More Punishment.

 

It feels like this might well be grounds to take the whole process into court as unfair and prejudicial...which is the kind of grounds they need, to overturn a binding arbitration provision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...