2022 NFL Thread (Chiefs win Super Bowl 57)

[Dream Team]

I know I'm a horrible person and all, but "he used Instagram to solicit massages from random strangers."  And?

Dude. Have you read any of the complaints from the 24 who are pressing charges?

[Stadler]

I've generally stayed out of this conversation (I wasn't in the room, and so I have nothing to offer; I don't know if he's a scumbag piece of shit, or telling the truth, and I don't know if they are strong, courageous heroes, or looking for a payday) but as much as I want this to be based on the facts of the matter, and as much as I am adamant that if they weren't consenting, his behavior was unacceptable, it's bothersome that so many innocuous facts are deemed "proof" simply because of their lasciviousness. 

[KevShmev]

As a person who regularly gets massages and has for years, I can safely say I believe that most are like me and are pretty monogamous when it comes to massage therapists.  They are like a good barber or stylist: when you find one you like, you stick with him or her.  You don't bounce from one to the other on a weekly/monthly basis.  So yeah, there is no way I believe that Watson is innocent here.  There is just too much smoke for there not to be a forest fire.

[Dream Team]

66 masseuses in 17 months. Sure, totally innocent.  Most of the sexual assault complaints are disgusting; in addition to a LENGTHY suspension he needs to agree to extensive therapy.

[Stadler]

As a person who regularly gets massages and has for years, I can safely say I believe that most are like me and are pretty monogamous when it comes to massage therapists.  They are like a good barber or stylist: when you find one you like, you stick with him or her.  You don't bounce from one to the other on a weekly/monthly basis.  So yeah, there is no way I believe that Watson is innocent here.  There is just too much smoke for there not to be a forest fire.

Agreed to this; my best friend's wife is a masseuse, and she has a stable of clients; it's a structure that's almost identical to the woman that cuts my hair.   Having said that, does travel fit in here anywhere?   Again, I'm not looking to absolve this guy; I'm not on a "side" here, just looking to see what the strength is of what is largely circumstantial (albeit compelling) evidence.

[hunnus2000]

It has been reported that when the Texans went through their background checks, Watson came back squeaky clean. No issues, no red flags nothing. I doubt that one becomes a sexual predator overnight so that's an angle to pay attention to.

[bosk1]

It has been reported that when the Texans went through their background checks, Watson came back squeaky clean. No issues, no red flags nothing. I doubt that one becomes a sexual predator overnight so that's an angle to pay attention to.

I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at.  Are you saying that the background check weighs in favor of his innocence?  Are you saying the Texans organization is closing ranks to protect themselves because of a bad investigation?  Or something else?

[hunnus2000]

It has been reported that when the Texans went through their background checks, Watson came back squeaky clean. No issues, no red flags nothing. I doubt that one becomes a sexual predator overnight so that's an angle to pay attention to.

I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at.  Are you saying that the background check weighs in favor of his innocence?  Are you saying the Texans organization is closing ranks to protect themselves because of a bad investigation?  Or something else?

It seems Watson was squeaky clean in high school and college and he was deemed by scouts as a franchise quarterback capable of being the face of the organization. (And yes, NFL security goes back to at the very least high school investigating players) So I am thinking that something is amiss. The questions I have are:

• How did a squeaky clean player harass 66 women since he entered the league?
  Did this behavior suddenly begin when he entered the NFL or is this part of a pattern that goes back to his college days and possibly further?
  Was there indeed a cover up by Houston? (as I understand, the Texans have been named in one of the newer lawsuits)
  Will Watson ever play a down in the NFL again? (serious question)

I am not accusing him of anything but this latest news makes me wonder.

[El Barto]

it's bothersome that so many innocuous facts are deemed "proof" simply because of their lasciviousness.

And the number of tangential elements that may or may not be meaningful, but necessarily equal guilt when lumped together.

Also, am I the only one that looks at these sorts of things crooked when one lawyer comes up with 24 complainants? Kind of seems to me that 24 women seeking attorneys to sue him is one thing. One attorney seeking 24 women to allege wrong-doing is very different.

[Stadler]

it's bothersome that so many innocuous facts are deemed "proof" simply because of their lasciviousness.

And the number of tangential elements that may or may not be meaningful, but necessarily equal guilt when lumped together.

Also, am I the only one that looks at these sorts of things crooked when one lawyer comes up with 24 complainants? Kind of seems to me that 24 women seeking attorneys to sue him is one thing. One attorney seeking 24 women to allege wrong-doing is very different.

It's a factor to be sure.  That attorney is almost certainly working on contingency, and having 24 bites at the apple is better than having one. 

[Dream Team]

I don’t pooh-pooh 24 accounts of sexual assault. But that’s just me, I’m used to being on an island.

[El Barto]

I don’t pooh-pooh 24 accounts of sexual assault. But that’s just me, I’m used to being on an island.

Nor should you. I don't. I pooh-pooh some of them, though, and I don't use those to prop up the presumption of guilt for the others. I just try to look at these things objectively in the interest of fairness.

[Skeever]

Just popping in to say that I found myself thinking today that I can not wait for NFL season to begin. Less than 3 months away 

[hunnus2000]

Just popping in to say that I found myself thinking today that I can not wait for NFL season to begin. Less than 3 months away 

I'm with ya brutha! 

[KevShmev]

I don’t pooh-pooh 24 accounts of sexual assault. But that’s just me, I’m used to being on an island.

Nor should you. I don't. I pooh-pooh some of them, though, and I don't use those to prop up the presumption of guilt for the others. I just try to look at these things objectively in the interest of fairness.

I get what you are saying in your various posts on this. 

And as someone who hates the "people are guilty nowadays until they prove their innocence" mob mentality of today, I just find his credibility sorely lacking for the reasons I stated the other day (no one goes to that many massage therapists in that span of time if their intentions are totally pure).

[hunnus2000]

I don’t pooh-pooh 24 accounts of sexual assault. But that’s just me, I’m used to being on an island.

Nor should you. I don't. I pooh-pooh some of them, though, and I don't use those to prop up the presumption of guilt for the others. I just try to look at these things objectively in the interest of fairness.

I get what you are saying in your various posts on this. 

And as someone who hates the "people are guilty nowadays until they prove their innocence" mob mentality of today, I just find his credibility sorely lacking for the reasons I stated the other day (no one goes to that many massage therapists in that span of time if their intentions are totally pure).

While I get what people are saying about innocent until proven guilty - don't the innocent have the duty to bring forth proof that they ARE innocent. A person does not get the right to claim harm to them without proof. One does not claim an election was stolen with any credibility without proof.

So far, there has been no proof on either side but Watson still has an uphill battle.

[TAC]

Deshaun Watson should've just went to the Orchids Of Asia.

[El Barto]

I don’t pooh-pooh 24 accounts of sexual assault. But that’s just me, I’m used to being on an island.

Nor should you. I don't. I pooh-pooh some of them, though, and I don't use those to prop up the presumption of guilt for the others. I just try to look at these things objectively in the interest of fairness.

I get what you are saying in your various posts on this. 

And as someone who hates the "people are guilty nowadays until they prove their innocence" mob mentality of today, I just find his credibility sorely lacking for the reasons I stated the other day (no one goes to that many massage therapists in that span of time if their intentions are totally pure).

His intentions don't have to be totally pure, though. They just have to be something other than predatory. He went to that many masseurs because he was looking for hot chicks to jerk him off. While we don't need to debate the purity of shopping around for hand jobs, we do need to understand that's a far cry from assaulting women (and also tacitly legal). To be clear, some of the allegations are highly problematic, and if he's guilty of them he needs to be nailed to a tree. I'm not on his side here. Most of them all kind of sounded kind of samey, and weren't really what I'd view as predatory. Based on what I've read here he saw something like 66 women during the time span in question. Twenty four are suing him. Of those, only a small fraction of the allegations seemed to me like assaultive behavior. We should be making sure he's held accountable for those, and the others are mostly there to cloud the waters and frame public opinion.

[KevShmev]

While I get what people are saying about innocent until proven guilty - don't the innocent have the duty to bring forth proof that they ARE innocent. A person does not get the right to claim harm to them without proof. One does not claim an election was stolen with any credibility without proof.

So far, there has been no proof on either side but Watson still has an uphill battle.

No.

His intentions don't have to be totally pure, though. They just have to be something other than predatory. He went to that many masseurs because he was looking for hot chicks to jerk him off. While we don't need to debate the purity of shopping around for hand jobs, we do need to understand that's a far cry from assaulting women (and also tacitly legal). To be clear, some of the allegations are highly problematic, and if he's guilty of them he needs to be nailed to a tree. I'm not on his side here. Most of them all kind of sounded kind of samey, and weren't really what I'd view as predatory. Based on what I've read here he saw something like 66 women during the time span in question. Twenty four are suing him. Of those, only a small fraction of the allegations seemed to me like assaultive behavior. We should be making sure he's held accountable for those, and the others are mostly there to cloud the waters and frame public opinion.

Fair points. 

[El Barto]

Deshaun Watson should've just went to the Orchids Of Asia.

Old people understand the value of discretion. I've said it before and I'll say it again: when privacy matters and money doesn't, deal only with professionals. DeShaun should have learned from Tiger Woods.

[Stadler]

I don’t pooh-pooh 24 accounts of sexual assault. But that’s just me, I’m used to being on an island.

Nor should you. I don't. I pooh-pooh some of them, though, and I don't use those to prop up the presumption of guilt for the others. I just try to look at these things objectively in the interest of fairness.

I get what you are saying in your various posts on this. 

And as someone who hates the "people are guilty nowadays until they prove their innocence" mob mentality of today, I just find his credibility sorely lacking for the reasons I stated the other day (no one goes to that many massage therapists in that span of time if their intentions are totally pure).

While I get what people are saying about innocent until proven guilty - don't the innocent have the duty to bring forth proof that they ARE innocent. A person does not get the right to claim harm to them without proof. One does not claim an election was stolen with any credibility without proof.

So far, there has been no proof on either side but Watson still has an uphill battle.

No, actually, they do not, with very, very few exceptions (usually around the validity of defenses).   I don't mean this personally, but that's a stunning statement right there.  It is BEDROCK to our system of jurisprudence that the defense doesn't have to say a WORD in trial if it thinks the prosecution didn't make it's case. 

And don't muddy the waters here with election stuff; Trump is not Watson and Watson is not Trump.  They are on opposite sides of the table, so to speak.

I'm honest-to-god floored by that.  How many other people here believe that the innocent have to prove their innocence?  That certainly explains a lot of what is seen on social media, I'll give you that.  I thought that was one of the basic things that all people just "knew".

[El Barto]

I don’t pooh-pooh 24 accounts of sexual assault. But that’s just me, I’m used to being on an island.

Nor should you. I don't. I pooh-pooh some of them, though, and I don't use those to prop up the presumption of guilt for the others. I just try to look at these things objectively in the interest of fairness.

I get what you are saying in your various posts on this. 

And as someone who hates the "people are guilty nowadays until they prove their innocence" mob mentality of today, I just find his credibility sorely lacking for the reasons I stated the other day (no one goes to that many massage therapists in that span of time if their intentions are totally pure).

While I get what people are saying about innocent until proven guilty - don't the innocent have the duty to bring forth proof that they ARE innocent. A person does not get the right to claim harm to them without proof. One does not claim an election was stolen with any credibility without proof.

So far, there has been no proof on either side but Watson still has an uphill battle.

No, actually, they do not, with very, very few exceptions (usually around the validity of defenses).   I don't mean this personally, but that's a stunning statement right there.  It is BEDROCK to our system of jurisprudence that the defense doesn't have to say a WORD in trial if it thinks the prosecution didn't make it's case. 

And don't muddy the waters here with election stuff; Trump is not Watson and Watson is not Trump.  They are on opposite sides of the table, so to speak.

I'm honest-to-god floored by that.  How many other people here believe that the innocent have to prove their innocence?  That certainly explains a lot of what is seen on social media, I'll give you that.  I thought that was one of the basic things that all people just "knew".

I did a double take when I read that as well. I didn't chime in because I don't think that's how he really meant it. It's kind of contradictory with the next sentence.

[hunnus2000]

I can see how that sentence could be confusing so my bad for that.

I guess what I am asking is this - does a person have the right to sue someone for damages and receive compensation without evidence?

And the election example is valid - 60 cases - no proof - cases tossed.

I am not trying to be contentious and if Watson did these deeds then he should definitely be punished.

Also, I am not a lawyer so I am willing to be corrected on my stance.

[El Barto]

I can see how that sentence could be confusing so my bad for that.

I guess what I am asking is this - does a person have the right to sue someone for damages and receive compensation without evidence?

And the election example is valid - 60 cases - no proof - cases tossed.

I am not trying to be contentious and if Watson did these deeds then he should definitely be punished.

Also, I am not a lawyer so I am willing to be corrected on my stance.

Anybody can sue for damages. If there's no evidence you'll probably not make it to trial, though, and you'll almost certainly lose once you get there. However, in a case like this testimony is evidence. It'll be up to a jury to determine who's credible. I suspect that's why you've got 24 plaintiffs right now (more will show up).

[Stadler]

I can see how that sentence could be confusing so my bad for that.

I guess what I am asking is this - does a person have the right to sue someone for damages and receive compensation without evidence?

And the election example is valid - 60 cases - no proof - cases tossed.

I am not trying to be contentious and if Watson did these deeds then he should definitely be punished.

Also, I am not a lawyer so I am willing to be corrected on my stance.

Well, one thing that might help is if you keep your plaintiff and defendant's straight.   The burden of proof is on those MAKING the allegations.  Trump has to prove the election was a fraud if he brings suit (he's the PLAINTIFF).  The women have to prove Watson assaulted them (they are the PLAINTIFFS). If I sue you for damages, I am the PLAINTIFF and I have to prove you did or didn't do what I allege.  You needn't lift a finger to prove anything if you don't feel it is warranted, and you - the DEFENSE - can still win.

[hunnus2000]

I can see how that sentence could be confusing so my bad for that.

I guess what I am asking is this - does a person have the right to sue someone for damages and receive compensation without evidence?

And the election example is valid - 60 cases - no proof - cases tossed.

I am not trying to be contentious and if Watson did these deeds then he should definitely be punished.

Also, I am not a lawyer so I am willing to be corrected on my stance.

Well, one thing that might help is if you keep your plaintiff and defendant's straight.   The burden of proof is on those MAKING the allegations.  Trump has to prove the election was a fraud if he brings suit (he's the PLAINTIFF).  The women have to prove Watson assaulted them (they are the PLAINTIFFS). If I sue you for damages, I am the PLAINTIFF and I have to prove you did or didn't do what I allege.  You needn't lift a finger to prove anything if you don't feel it is warranted, and you - the DEFENSE - can still win.

OK - based on your explanation, I can definitely see why you guys were scratching your heads based on my of my previous comments.

[hunnus2000]

OK - I heard a few hours ago that of the 24 cases against Watson, all but four have been settled.

[TAC]

Seems the Cleveland Browns paid them off..

[El Barto]

Twenty out of twenty-four sounds about right. I'm guessing the four remaining are the original complainants with serious beefs with the guy.

[KevShmev]

I saw an interesting idea for what Watson's suspension should be: he gets 1 regular season game for every settlement.  And he is ineligible to play in the postseason until he has served all of the games he is suspended for in the regular season.

[El Barto]

I saw an interesting idea for what Watson's suspension should be: he gets 1 regular season game for every settlement.  And he is ineligible to play in the postseason until he has served all of the games he is suspended for in the regular season.

And if my last name is Rooney, I'm rounding up every woman I can find to make baseless accusations about him, knowing that it'll still be cheaper for him to settle than to defend against them. That's the problem with settlements. The complaints need not have any merit whatsoever, so long as the desired settlement amount is less than the cost of disproving the allegation, and I suspect any lawyer worth a damn knows what that magic number is.

That's exactly why I said 20/24 sounded about right. The four with legitimate grievances are hanging tight.

[KevShmev]

I saw an interesting idea for what Watson's suspension should be: he gets 1 regular season game for every settlement.  And he is ineligible to play in the postseason until he has served all of the games he is suspended for in the regular season.

And if my last name is Rooney, I'm rounding up every woman I can find to make baseless accusations about him, knowing that it'll still be cheaper for him to settle than to defend against them. That's the problem with settlements. The complaints need not have any merit whatsoever, so long as the desired settlement amount is less than the cost of disproving the allegation, and I suspect any lawyer worth a damn knows what that magic number is.

That's exactly why I said 20/24 sounded about right. The four with legitimate grievances are hanging tight.

Agreed. 

[faizoff]

The WSJ has an article where they mention the NFL is getting ready to dole out Watson's punishment, going to be interesting after all said and done what the actual number of games the suspension will be.

The NFL is pushing for an indefinite suspension that would last no shorter than one year for Watson, people familiar with the matter said. That would mean he would be out for one season, at least, before he could apply to be reinstated. 

[ProfessorPeart]

The WSJ has an article where they mention the NFL is getting ready to dole out Watson's punishment, going to be interesting after all said and done what the actual number of games the suspension will be.

The NFL is pushing for an indefinite suspension that would last no shorter than one year for Watson, people familiar with the matter said. That would mean he would be out for one season, at least, before he could apply to be reinstated. 

That's what I am seeing today after the hearings have started. I predicated at least 1 year some time ago. The Browns did the only Browns thing they could do by signing a guy almost certainly to get a lengthy suspension while completely alienating the guy that had been doing a decent job for them for the last few years. If I were Baker, I'd tell them to pound sand if they came groveling to him to handle the next season knowing it was a fill in spot only.

[TAC]

I heard on the radio that they're pushing for an indefinite suspension because something like the statute of limitations of these claims expires in March of 2023. The NFL doesn't want to be in a position where they suspend him for a year, and then new allegations or evidence is introduced. They only want to suspend once, and an indefinite suspension guards against that.