UPDATE: Deshaun Watson Suspended 11 Games, $5 million fine

[craftsman 1,045]

Why can't the NFL just take care of this once and all. Why go through the whole bringing a judge in if they already have a punishment in mind. Couldn't they have been in this spot months ago and therefore the team would know what's up?

 

[Ray_T 798]

3 minutes ago, jrokh said:

I’ve heard that not only will the NFLPA sue the league if they do a fully year, but there is actually a chance Watson plays the whole year before this all gets sorted out. Could be messy. Stay Tuned…

and the NFL is ok with that.

why?

the contract was structured so he would lose amost no money if the suspension happened right away.

if they appeal and it takes a full year to resolve, he then sits portions of year 2.  at a substantially higher rate of pay..   Maybe this was the plan for the NFL all along.  they knew he was playing the system so by pushing this as far as they can get it, they are forcing him to lose substantial money.

Watson would be smart to just take any suspension that doesnt go more than 3 or 4 games into year 2.   if he fights all year and ends up with a 6 game suspension and has to serve it next year, hes actually out money.  probably a lot of it.

 

[jrokh 620]

2 minutes ago, Ray_T said:

they appeal and it takes a full year to resolve, he then sits portions of year 2.  at a substantially higher rate of pay..   Maybe this was the plan for the NFL all along.  they knew he was playing the system so by pushing this as far as they can get it, they are forcing him to lose substantial money.

Maybe, but numerous reporters have stated the contract being structured that way had nothing do to with the suspension. The Browns have done similar deals with other players, who weren't in any trouble. Now causation doesn't equal correlation, but I don't think the NFL is as concerned with the fine as they are with the length of the suspension.

[Ray_T 798]

2 minutes ago, jrokh said:

the contract being structured that way had nothing do to with the suspension.

I truly find this hard to believe.   maybe it is standard procedure for the Browns I have not looked into their contract history (nor do I care to)

but year 1 has nearly no salary and it feels like this cannot be by accident.    but if they had to sign the guy and Desean proposed something like this if thats what it takes to get him to sign and you want the player, thats what you do.

typically players get the contract frontloaded so they dont lose much if they get released for cap reasons later but this smelled a bit strange when the contract was signed.

Not that I blame them.   If I were in his shoes I'd be doing the same thing most likely.   why take a large salary in year 1 when its likely to get eaten up in a suspension anyhow?

Prudent planning.   but thats not gonna stop the NFL from trying to get their pound of flesh.

Just sayin.

[jrokh 620]

1 hour ago, Ray_T said:

I truly find this hard to believe.   maybe it is standard procedure for the Browns I have not looked into their contract history (nor do I care to)

but year 1 has nearly no salary and it feels like this cannot be by accident.    but if they had to sign the guy and Desean proposed something like this if thats what it takes to get him to sign and you want the player, thats what you do.

typically players get the contract frontloaded so they dont lose much if they get released for cap reasons later but this smelled a bit strange when the contract was signed.

Not that I blame them.   If I were in his shoes I'd be doing the same thing most likely.   why take a large salary in year 1 when its likely to get eaten up in a suspension anyhow?

Prudent planning.   but thats not gonna stop the NFL from trying to get their pound of flesh.

Just sayin.

Just sayin…

 

[Ray_T 798]

interesting.  I wonder if thats because player took a large signing bonus and so took it in lieu of a large year 1 salary.

not sure if there is anything to this or not.   but its interesting info.

[TBayXXXVII 2,683]

16 hours ago, Ray_T said:

interesting.  I wonder if thats because player took a large signing bonus and so took it in lieu of a large year 1 salary.

not sure if there is anything to this or not.   but its interesting info.

It's for salary cap reasons.  You're able to give them cash now and spread it out over the life of the contract.  Because of that, they backload the contracts because they expect to have more money to spend in following years with the cap going up.  That said, I think your original line of thought might be right with Watson because every year after this year, he has the same $46M base salary.

That's not the case with Garrett (his contract fluctuates - when roster bonuses kick in), Chubb (his contract increases), Cooper (has 2 voidable years), Teller (his contract fluctuates - when roster bonuses kick in).  Godwin has 2 voidable years.  Gallup's increases.  Watson's contract from this aspect is very unique.  It's not like it's because Watson is a QB.  Aaron Rodgers' contract fluctuates.  Stafford's goes up and then decreases.

[Ray_T 798]

12 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

It's for salary cap reasons.  You're able to give them cash now and spread it out over the life of the contract.  Because of that, they backload the contracts because they expect to have more money to spend in following years with the cap going up.  That said, I think your original line of thought might be right with Watson because every year after this year, he has the same $46M base salary.

That's not the case with Garrett (his contract fluctuates - when roster bonuses kick in), Chubb (his contract increases), Cooper (has 2 voidable years), Teller (his contract fluctuates - when roster bonuses kick in).  Godwin has 2 voidable years.  Gallup's increases.  Watson's contract from this aspect is very unique.  It's not like it's because Watson is a QB.  Aaron Rodgers' contract fluctuates.  Stafford's goes up and then decreases.

either way, it feels like the NFL is pushing for more perhaps because of the structure of the contract.  Maybe I'm wrong and its more along the lines of not wanting to look soft on this sort of thing.

could be something else entirely.  who knows.

[TBayXXXVII 2,683]

On 8/5/2022 at 1:00 AM, Ray_T said:

either way, it feels like the NFL is pushing for more perhaps because of the structure of the contract.  Maybe I'm wrong and its more along the lines of not wanting to look soft on this sort of thing.

could be something else entirely.  who knows.

I don't that money was a part of their plan, but I think the Browns structured the deal just in case he was suspended the whole year.  This way, they'd be able to have money to spend on a QB.  Honestly, I think that if Watson is suspended the whole year, they go after Garoppolo.

[Mike FF Today 759]

Negotiated settlement talk is picking up steam...

 

[craftsman 1,045]

If they actually have a settlement, I bet it's 8-12 games. Not really reaching there though.

Money? Who knows or cares? Contract is pieced together to handle it I imagine.

Watson came out publically to apologize to the women. That is part of him wanting to get this over with and settle, if not a required part of the settlement. 

 

[jrokh 620]

 

[Mike FF Today 759]

11 games it is. Will the Browns pickup Jimmy G. after he's released or stick with Brissett?

 

[AxeElf 787]

His return is against the Texans?

Wow...

[craftsman 1,045]

1 hour ago, AxeElf said:

His return is against the Texans?

Wow...

Not Jacksonville?

[TBayXXXVII 2,683]

20 minutes ago, craftsman said:

Not Jacksonville?

The Browns don't play Jacksonville this year.

[craftsman 1,045]

3 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

The Browns don't play Jacksonville this year.

Yeah. I was actually looking at Baltimore's schedule by mistake.

And it's @ Houston. That should be flexed to prime time. Must see tv. 

[jgcrawfish 232]

Too little, too light, not near harsh enough.  If a guy betting on games can get 1 year, a guy who assaults that number of women should get at least that. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,683]

17 minutes ago, craftsman said:

Yeah. I was actually looking at Baltimore's schedule by mistake.

And it's @ Houston. That should be flexed to prime time. Must see tv. 

Meh, it happens.

I don't see the NFL flexing two teams that are 3-9 to be prime time over the KC / Cincy game or Chargers / Raiders game.  Nor are they going to bump Dallas / Indy from Sunday night.

[Gepetto 1,483]

Looking at their schedule looks like the Browns will have 2 or 3 wins so 2-9 or 3-8 at best by week 13.

[jrokh 620]

13 minutes ago, Gepetto said:

Looking at their schedule looks like the Browns will have 2 or 3 wins so 2-9 or 3-8 at best by week 13.

Don’t know about that. The first 4 games are all winnable. Their Defense could be really good, and the RB’s are elite.

[Ray_T 798]

11 minutes ago, jrokh said:

Don’t know about that. The first 4 games are all winnable. Their Defense could be really good, and the RB’s are elite.

yeah, I'm thinking more along the lines of 5-6.   but there is a wide variability in the possible outcomes here

[craftsman 1,045]

1 hour ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Meh, it happens.

I don't see the NFL flexing two teams that are 3-9 to be prime time over the KC / Cincy game or Chargers / Raiders game.  Nor are they going to bump Dallas / Indy from Sunday night.

A lot can happen in 12 weeks. Cleveland has a chance to have a better record than any of those teams at that point.

[TBayXXXVII 2,683]

26 minutes ago, craftsman said:

A lot can happen in 12 weeks. Cleveland has a chance to have a better record than any of those teams at that point.

True, there certainly is a chance... but I'd bet against it.  Generally teams with bad QB's have bad records.  Brissett isn't really all that good.  Could the Browns be around .500, such as 5-6 by Week 13?  Certainly.  It's not unrealistic.  I just don't think it happens.

When I look at their first 11 games, with Brissett as their QB, I pretty much count Pittsburgh, LA, NE, Baltimore, Cincy, Miami, Buffalo, and Tampa as locked in losses.  To me, their best case scenario is 3-8.  Could they win one (Pittsburgh?) or two of those?  Sure.  But me?  If the line is 5 wins (at that point), I'm taking the under.

[jrokh 620]

1 minute ago, TBayXXXVII said:

True, there certainly is a chance... but I'd bet against it.  Generally teams with bad QB's have bad records.  Brissett isn't really all that could.  Could the Browns be around .500, such as 5-6 by Week 13?  Certainly.  It's not unrealistic.  I just don't think it happens.

When I look at their first 11 games, with Brissett as their QB, I pretty much count Pittsburgh, LA, NE, Baltimore, Cincy, Miami, Buffalo, and Tampa as locked in losses.  To me, their best case scenario is 3-8.  Could they win one or two of those?  Sure.  But me?  If the line is 5 wins (at that point), I'm taking the under.

Not sure why Miami, NE, and Pitt are locked in losses. None of those teams are scary. Plus their first four games are pretty cake: Panthers/Jets/Steelers/Falcons. I predict 3-1 coming out of the first month.

[Ray_T 798]

1 minute ago, jrokh said:

Not sure why Miami, NE, and Pitt are locked in losses.

NE I'd agree probably is a loss.   though early in the year sometimes they will drop games they should win.

Miami and Pitt are games that could go either way in my opinion.

it really depends on whether offseason changes work out.   Pitt has a new QB and a rookie behind him.  (or possibly a rookie starting) and that makes it a bit of a crapshoot even if the D is ok.

Miami will be better than last year, but will they be a lot better?   it may take some time to get to a point of being better where it shows.

 

[jrokh 620]

18 minutes ago, Ray_T said:

NE I'd agree probably is a loss.   though early in the year sometimes they will drop games they should win.

Miami and Pitt are games that could go either way in my opinion.

it really depends on whether offseason changes work out.   Pitt has a new QB and a rookie behind him.  (or possibly a rookie starting) and that makes it a bit of a crapshoot even if the D is ok.

Miami will be better than last year, but will they be a lot better?   it may take some time to get to a point of being better where it shows.

 

What is so great about NE? They seem like a slightly above average team to me. They might beat Cleveland but I’m not seeing how it’s a given.

[weepaws 3,437]

3 hours ago, craftsman said:

Not Jacksonville?

You had it right on your first post.  Lol more like a coincidence. 

[Ray_T 798]

1 hour ago, jrokh said:

What is so great about NE? They seem like a slightly above average team to me. They might beat Cleveland but I’m not seeing how it’s a given.

I never said it was a given.

I said its probably a loss.   and it probably is.  Cleveland was an inferior team with Baker at QB last year.  they lost more games than they won.  this year they are running with Brisset who was a backup last year and in my mind is inferior to baker.  I dont think the team will be better with him at the controls.

New England was a playoff team last year with a rookie QB.  that rookie now has an extra year of experience behind him and should be better than he was last year.

I dont see a reason why I would change this prediction.     Its not that its a slam dunk, but I'd say they are good enough that they should win this game against a team with a backup QB at the helm.    

I agree with your argument with Miami and Pittsburgh.   not in agreement on New England.

[jrokh 620]

37 minutes ago, Ray_T said:

I agree with your argument with Miami and Pittsburgh.   not in agreement on New England.

I am not actually predicting wins and losses vs those three teams, The Browns could lose them all. I just don't get why any of the three would be lock wins. Tampa, Buffalo, LAC sure, I get that. NE also just lost their OC and replaced him with no one. I'm still not sure who will be calling the plays there. The Browns have a better roster than any of those three teams. But yeah, at the most important position NE definitely gets the edge.

[Ray_T 798]

well it is now rumoured that the browns are looking into trading for Jimmy G.

that said there is an interesting article I found on Jimmy G which may explain in other terms why San Fran is moving on....

not sure how reliable the source is, but if true, and I were a coach, it would drive me nuts.

 

Jimmy Garoppolo 'ghosting' story keeps getting weirder (nypost.com)

[AxeElf 787]

Or not...

https://www.sfgate.com/49ers/article/browns-wont-trade-49ers-garoppolo-17382326.php

But someone might sign him after he's cut...

[Ray_T 798]

speculation on this is all over the map.  though it truly wouldnt surprise me to see the browns acquire a QB now that Desean is out 11 games.

 

[TBayXXXVII 2,683]

49 minutes ago, jrokh said:

Not sure why Miami, NE, and Pitt are locked in losses. None of those teams are scary. Plus their first four games are pretty cake: Panthers/Jets/Steelers/Falcons. I predict 3-1 coming out of the first month.

I did say Pittsburgh is a game they could win.  But, in general, when you have a team with a below average QB (like Brissett), and limited to below average receiving options, scoring points isn't going to be easy.  I think all 3, Pittsburgh, Miami, and New England all have... at worst, equal teams, but a better QB.  Last year, New England had a top 5 offense and defense, made the playoffs, and did it with a rookie QB.  Miami had a winning record, had a good defense, but crappy offense that made the defense look worse.  I'm not a huge believer in Tua, but the Dolphins were a much better team with him than they were with Brissett.  Plus, they added a huge weapon in Tyreek Hill.  Pittsburgh was already better than Cleveland last year, and that was with Roethlisberger being the 31st ranked QB (according to PFF, for whatever that's worth), even without their ranking, we all know he was garbage.  They replaced him with Trubisky, and while I don't think he's really all that good, it's not like the Bears have a track record of developing QB's.  Odds are, Trubisky is an upgrade over Roethlisberger.

Also, I don't think for the Browns, the Panthers and Jets "are pretty cake".  Last year, with a healthy Christian McCaffrey, even Sam Darnold looked like a good QB.  I'm certainly no fan of Mayfield, but if McCaffrey can make Darnold look good, he can make Mayfield look great.  Not only that, that'll be a huge game for Mayfield and it's in Charlotte.  That might be his best game all year.  The Jets did a lot to improve their team through free agency and the draft.  No, I don't think they'll be a great team by any stretch, but I think they might be respectable and be somewhere around .500, which would be a big improvement over the last 6 seasons.  In order to be a team that's hovering around .500, they'll need to beat teams like the Browns.  Will they win?  Maybe, maybe not.  I do think the Browns will win that game, but I don't think it's cake.  The only "cake" game I see for them, is Atlanta.

You very well might be right that they start 3-1, but over the next 7 games, they may not win any.  I'll concede a split... they'll beat either Miami or New England.  That puts them at 4-7.  As I said in the post you quoted, "If the line is 5 wins (at that point), I'm taking the under."

[jrokh 620]

23 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I did say Pittsburgh is a game they could win.  But, in general, when you have a team with a below average QB (like Brissett), and limited to below average receiving options, scoring points isn't going to be easy.  I think all 3, Pittsburgh, Miami, and New England all have... at worst, equal teams, but a better QB.  Last year, New England had a top 5 offense and defense, made the playoffs, and did it with a rookie QB.  Miami had a winning record, had a good defense, but crappy offense that made the defense look worse.  I'm not a huge believer in Tua, but the Dolphins were a much better team with him than they were with Brissett.  Plus, they added a huge weapon in Tyreek Hill.  Pittsburgh was already better than Cleveland last year, and that was with Roethlisberger being the 31st ranked QB (according to PFF, for whatever that's worth), even without their ranking, we all know he was garbage.  They replaced him with Trubisky, and while I don't think he's really all that good, it's not like the Bears have a track record of developing QB's.  Odds are, Trubisky is an upgrade over Roethlisberger.

Also, I don't think for the Browns, the Panthers and Jets "are pretty cake".  Last year, with a healthy Christian McCaffrey, even Sam Darnold looked like a good QB.  I'm certainly no fan of Mayfield, but if McCaffrey can make Darnold look good, he can make Mayfield look great.  Not only that, that'll be a huge game for Mayfield and it's in Charlotte.  That might be his best game all year.  The Jets did a lot to improve their team through free agency and the draft.  No, I don't think they'll be a great team by any stretch, but I think they might be respectable and be somewhere around .500, which would be a big improvement over the last 6 seasons.  In order to be a team that's hovering around .500, they'll need to beat teams like the Browns.  Will they win?  Maybe, maybe not.  I do think the Browns will win that game, but I don't think it's cake.  The only "cake" game I see for them, is Atlanta.

You very well might be right that they start 3-1, but over the next 7 games, they may not win any.  I'll concede a split... they'll beat either Miami or New England.  That puts them at 4-7.  As I said in the post you quoted, "If the line is 5 wins (at that point), I'm taking the under."

That’s a nice hedge from ‘locked in losses’. Better late than never though. I can’t really disagree with your amended statement. I think their range is 4-7 to 7-4 with 5-6 being the most likely scenario.

[TBayXXXVII 2,683]

6 minutes ago, jrokh said:

That’s a nice hedge from ‘locked in losses’. Better late than never though. I can’t really disagree with your amended statement. I think their range is 4-7 to 7-4 with 5-6 being the most likely scenario.

Not really a hedge, I think those are locked in losses, I'm just willing to concede that the Browns could get lucky and pull one of them off (just like when Jacksonville beat Buffalo last year).  I'm 2 less than you on those... I think their range is 2-9 to 5-6 with the most likely being 3-8.

[jrokh 620]

46 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I think those are locked in losses, I'm just willing to concede that the Browns could get lucky and pull one of them off

Well according to the current Vegas Insider consensus betting line, the Browns are FAVORED in all 3 of those games. (Pitt -4), (NE-2,5), and (MIA-1), So not only aren't they 'locked in losses, but it would be 'luckier' if they didn't pull off one of them. If you really have the courage of your convictions, you should run to that site and place wagers on those games you would be getting points when you claim the opponent would be lucky to win. Of course, you won't...

[TBayXXXVII 2,683]

6 minutes ago, jrokh said:

Well according to the current Vegas Insider consensus betting line, the Browns are FAVORED in all 3 of those games. (Pitt -4), (NE-2,5), and (MIA-1), So not only aren't they 'locked in losses, but it would be 'luckier' if they didn't pull off one of them. If you really have the courage of your convictions, you should run to that site and place wagers on those games you would be getting points when you claim the opponent would be lucky to win. Of course, you won't...

I'll bet all 3 on the money line.