BarleyNY

The choice of agent certainly gives insight to a player’s priorities.

Meh. There’s a huge difference to me between now, when I know we can win it all, and when we had Wrex and Tyrod/EJ and I knew we had no chance.

The response of the team to this sort of thing is what matters. Most fans are expecting a SB win and getting hopes up that high can hurt if the team falls short. Personally I know they’re good enough to win it all, but that it’s a tough road. I’m just trying to enjoy the ride. The toughest part for me is that I just want the playoffs to start already. That’s where this team will show its worth.

Kraft was charged with solicitation of prostitution. The video evidence of him doing so (more than once) was found to be inadmissible, so those criminal charges were dropped. But the video proof was certainly something the NFL could use and should have resulted in him being found in violation of the PCP. But the NFL chose to sweep it under the rug. Snyder has done far worse. Watson’s lawyers have stressed that Watson was not charged with a crime - by two grand juries - and they contend that the civil suits were nuisances. Anyone can file a civil suit against anyone else, so what matters (or should matter) to the NFL is the evidence that is brought to light by such cases. The NFL did not submit any evidence of violence, threats of violence or coercion. So that leaves us with Watson trying to talk women who were giving him massages into having sex with him as potential violations. I can’t imagine that would stick, but if the arbiter thinks that is enough to suspend Watson then that’s what she will do. The other issue is the clause written into the policy: “Ownership and club or league management have traditionally been held to a higher standard and will be subject to more significant discipline when violations of the Personal Conduct Policy occur.” Watson’s lawyers have argued that the league’s inaction with Kraft, Snyder and Jones would warrant dismissal based on that clause. If the arbiter takes those as precedent, then that will likely be what happens. But it’s not a given that will be the case. Originally I expected a suspension of 6-8 games for Watson, but after hearing info from the case I think there’s a real chance it will be dismissed. The NFL really looks like they screwed it up by ignoring the violations by owners and half-assing their side of the case. I know they are pissed that Watson didn’t negotiate a suspension and has maintained his innocence. If the arbiter finds that Watson is in violation of the PCP and issues a light or moderate suspension, I can see Goodell overruling it and dropping the hammer. That might lead to more issues, but I’m not sure cool heads would prevail.

The problem with the Kraft situation is that the league didn’t even pursue charging him with a violation of the PCP.

That’s true about the NFL hoping the cases would all be settled. I think that they also expected Watson to negotiate a suspension with them. And they did run out of time. But I don’t think it will be as big of a story once the decision has been made and any suspension finalized. Lots of intrigue and uncertainty now to go along with salacious details to keep people interested. But that’s going to be over soon and there will be a lot of competing NFL storylines. Right now there’s nothing else NFL related to talk about.

I agree. Just in time for whatever the ruling is to be drowned out by the opening of training camps.

I think it’s more: We, the players, will let you, the league, retain final say over punishment for PCP violations if owners are held to at least the same standard. The NFL agreed and then totally disregarded that agreement three times. I guess I don’t understand people who get bent out of shape over Watson, but just shrug their shoulders at Snyder, Kraft and Jones. Especially Snyder.

I don’t know the process involved here so I can’t say for sure where this will go. How much does precedent factor into the decision? If it factors heavily and it has been set by the league’s inaction against owners who’s violations seem worse, then Watson will win this. But maybe that’s not how this will work. It’s a nebulous part of the PCP: Conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL personnel. Thats pretty broad and open to interpretation, but I’d think it would be easy to say that Watson violated that - unless precedent is considered. I dunno. It depends on a process that hasn’t been spelled out.

Yup. It is the easiest outcome for the league. On thing I’ll say as far as coercion goes, I have seen no evidence to support those claims. Even the testimony has not pointed to coercion. It’s been stuff like “he’s a big guy” and “he said he could help my business”. That’s not the same as threatening violence or loss of income. Also the text exchange between masseuses that was released didn’t show any concern for anyone’s safety. It wasn’t “you’re in danger”. It was “Watson is getting a reputation”. And don’t get me wrong, the things I think he’s done do deserve punishment. I think he’s getting that in the form of being drug through the mud in front of the country as well as some serious financial penalties. IMO he deserves a little unpaid time off at work too. But I don’t have any sympathy for the league if he skates. Their written agreement with the NFLPA was that they had to keep their house in order. In return they retained the right to overrule punishments. And their house has been a mess since.

I think the NFL made its bed when they chose to do nothing to three owners who clearly violated the PCP. Snyder’s transgression became an issue again because it transpired that he was stealing from other owners, but before then he had no real consequences for things far worse than Watson has been accused of.

That definitely tracks to Watson skating. I can’t imagine how the league could justify an unprecedented penalty for a violation that did not include charges being brought against the player, much less a conviction. Previously I laid out the case that the neutral arbiter finding in favor of Watson was the best case scenario for the NFL. TL:DR on that is: the league gets to continue to feign outrage but has their hands tied. The Watson saga is over (save the lawsuit against the Texans). Incidentally, it would also be better for McNair and the Texans since a suspension by the NFL could be used against them in court.

Yes, pretty much any large contract has that basic structure. Some are tweaked for various reasons, but it’s standard practice. Oddly, Allen’s Y1 salary on his extension was $4.1M. I’m not sure why they didn’t take it all the way down to the minimum, but that’s the exception (and it’s still a pretty low salary compared to the AAV). here is a Spotrac link to the biggest contracts.

Again, the Watson contract is structured exactly the same way as almost all huge contracts are. A large signing bonus and minimum first year salary is standard practice. For example, Von Miller’s contract with the Bills has a large SB and a minimum Y1 salary.

The arbiter who decides whether or not Watson violated the Personal Conduct Policy is former U.S. District Court Judge Sue Robinson. If she determines that he did not, the process is over. If she determines that he did, then she also decides the penalty for the violation. Goodell - or his appointee - can overrule that and issue a different punishment, however. The terrible look is more about what the reaction of players and the NFLPA would be rather than what the general public thinks. This new process is supposed to be much more impartial. Goodell jumping in on the first one is a bad start to that - especially on a case with no criminal charges brought. The threatened lawsuit by the NFLPA would contend that the NFL did not adhere to the PCP’s clause that requires owners to be penalized more severely than players for similar offenses. The NFLPA obviously does not want to do that, but I think it’s in play if the league overrules the neutral arbiter with a much more severe penalty. As for the general public’s reaction, I’m sure that many won’t be happy with a result that is less than an indefinite ban. There’s not much difference to many people if it’s 0, 4, 6 or 8 games. All would fall well short of what they want. And let’s face it, the decision will not impact ticket sales or viewership. People will have their reactions and then keep right on watching the NFL. Heck, a bunch of outraged people will probably tune in to Browns games just to root against Watson.

That a fair point.

That is correct, but the NFL does not want to overrule the first decision of this new process. It would be a terrible look and could lead to the NFLPA taking the NFL to court. I think that they will have to feel like they don’t have any other choice if they overrule the decision.

The NFL calling for a indefinite suspension was mostly PR. They are trying to show the public that they want to be extremely tough on players who behave as Watson is alleged to have. I heard a tidbit regarding negotiations between the league and Watson’s team. It was that they already turned down a negotiated suspension in the much lesser range that the NFL recently leaked. That makes me think that 6-8 games is the worst case for Watson, with fewer or even 0 being possible. I do not know where it will land either, but some possibilities are much cleaner for the NFL than others. They do not want to overrule the arbiter’s decision. To do so on the very first case would be an awful look with the players and NFLPA - and it could lead to real court. They just don’t want it to be so few that they have to overrule it and open up that can of worms. One thing to remember is that if the arbiter finds in favor of Watson, then it’s over. The NFL can not overrule or modify that decision.

A special off-the-ball LB can make a very valuable impact on a defense. The Luke Keuchley’s of the world are certainly worth paying. The problem is that there are very few of those kinds of players and Edmunds is not one of them.

You bring up an interesting question. What does everyone think the arbiter’s verdict will be? Clarification: I am looking for a specific number of games and how you think she will rule, not how you’d rule. I say 6 games. Bonus question: Will there be a challenge from either side? No. Both sides will accept that.

Besides Type 2 Diabetes?

Oh no

Lamar Jackson, who is set to play on his 5th year option, chooses not to attend voluntary OTAs. Everyone’s reaction but you: It’s almost certainly a negotiation tactic for that nine figure contract he’s trying to work out with the Ravens. Your take: It’s not that, it’s for some other reason I can’t think of. And he’s not in contract negotiations with the Ravens. I have given this argument far more time than it deserves. I’ll leave it there.

It’s all your delusional posts are worth. I learned a long time ago that talking sense to crazy is nothing but a waste of time and energy.