Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Are we getting Watson week 1?

Amos Moses

By Amos Moses,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

MHS831 Grand Master

MHS831

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Jackie Lee said:

Zeke got to play after he sued the NFL, Adrian Peterson didn't get to play because he lost his appeal while waiting for his domestic court date. Could go either way depending on the federal judge

 

I think the chances of Watson starting week 1 are about 0%.

The way I understand it, the appeal either eliminates, decreases, or increases the initial decision.  The NFL will not eliminate or decrease the decision. The suspension will be 6 games at a minimum, and a year (I am guessing) as a maximum.

Secondly, there could still be complaints pending.  This is not the publicity you advise your client to endure.

Edited by MHS831
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jackie Lee Grand Master

Jackie Lee

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, MHS831 said:

I think the chances of Watson starting week 1 are about 0%.

The way I understand it, the appeal either eliminates, decreases, or increases the initial decision.  The NFL will not eliminate or decrease the decision. The suspension will be 6 games at a minimum, and a year (I am guessing) as a maximum.

Right the appeal will increase the suspension, but then Watson/NFLPA will sue Goodell in federal court and then a real judge will decide whether he can play or not before his court date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pimpdaddy Grand Master

Pimpdaddy

Posted
Posted (edited)

...been a browns fan since 70s...Cle is ripe for a badass loss in this one...saw it sooo many times... Plus Mayfield knows their defense...so I don't care if the perv starts or not...they always find a way to lose...

Edited by Pimpdaddy
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CPcavedweller Veteran

CPcavedweller

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, t96 said:

No, zero chance. NFL is trying to make the suspension longer. Watson wasn't fighting 6 games. NFL may not get their wish of more than 6 games but it's not going to backfire so far as him playing week 1.

His suspension won't be settled until after the season starts so he will, in effect, have an injunction on serving any suspension jntil that's settled.

Overall, I don't care and I don't think it matters. I think the Panthers win this game. 

As an aside, I'm so very glad Watson didn't end up here. The more I read about his situation the more uncomfortable I get. Add in the media circus that will follow and you've got a recipe for distraction. There is also no way he can lead a locker room of grown men if he is guilty of what is alleged. Real men do not support other men who sexually harass women in the manner that Watson appears to have done. He should be suspended for a year with some serious stipulations. At this point, it's serial and likely an addiction for him. I'm sure there are others out there that never came forward as well who may have given in to his advances.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jackie Lee Grand Master

Jackie Lee

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, TrevorLaurenceTime22 said:

When the OP isn't bright enough to realize the appeal is to make the suspension LONGER lol.

The NFLPA accepted 6 games, if Goodell extends it to a year or whatever they will sue and a federal judge will determine if he can play or not until the court case is finished. Watson has to decide if he wants to sue and play until the court decision and prolong the suspension or just suck it up and sit. Look at the Zeke case, he got 6 games, sued, played til week 10 and then had to sit the next 6 after the court decision. Goodell might put him on the exempt list and Watson can sue again to play until the court date depending on how the Browns want to handle it

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.

Guest
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.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Mistuh Jones
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By Mistuh Jones · Posted

      This is gonna be longest six weeks ever 
    • PNW_PantherMan
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By PNW_PantherMan · Posted

      This 1000%.  Hey who wants to sign with the guy that couldn't even get his client the guaranteed contract of a 3rd round pick?  Lmao
    • tukafan21
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
×
×
  • Create New...