hish747

https://www.cleveland.com/browns/2022/03/second-grand-jury-declines-to-indict-deshaun-watson.html We should all understand the importance of a Grand Jury failing to indict. Some folks are under the impression that, because it relates to a criminal matter, the grand jury has to find that the case is made "beyond a reasonable doubt." They then think that even though the grand jury fails to indict, the civil case has a better chance of success. It's the opposite. The grand jury case is MUCH easier to prove than the civil case. The grand jury standard is the same standard used in the civil case but the prosecutor is the only one who presents the case to the jury. There is no defense attorney to dispute any evidence or statements made by the prosecutor or in any way oppose the prosecutors case. These cases are exceedingly weak I'm starting to believe the only reason the prosecution even filed these cases is public pressure. If you can't convince a jury in the easiest proceeding there is with your strongest cases you have, imagine what happens in a civil case when the jury gets to hear: -Other therapists who testify that Watson is polite and courteous. -Many of the plaintiff pretty much said they are doing this for the money -Many of the plaintiffs had repeated appointments despite the "shocking" behavior -One of the plaintiffs actually blackmailed Watson for $30,000 with the threat that they would lie about what happened. -The plaintiffs deleted their social media accounts -The whole thing about Buzbee being McNair's neighbor and lying about not knowing who the Texans owner was. (Buzbee took out 10 billboards in 2014 asking McNair, by name, to draft Manziel) -McNair being angry at Watson for demanding a trade -The lawsuit were filed the day before the start of free agency The defenses go on and on but you can see where this is going...

I don't think a lack of hypocrisy; but a lack of analysis and scrutiny. Anything is "possible" but taking the time to think and research turns random "possibilities" into specific "probabilities." It's your prerogative not to be interested in that. I do like your comment about a grand jury indicting a ham sandwich. Spot on. Many people don't fully appreciate how easy it is for a grand jury to charge. They think it's the same beyond a reasonable doubt standard used at criminal trial. It's actually the same as the "more likely than not" civil standard. But it's actually even easier than the civil standard. In a grand jury proceeding, the prosecutor presents their strongest case, completely unopposed by a defense attorney to rebut the claims. The grand jury never heard of the opposing witnesses who claim that many of these women said they were going to frame Watson. Or the many who said he was a model citizen. Or the facts about the relationship between McNair and Buzbee. Or the fact that the civil lawsuits were filed one day before the start of free agency. So, if you can't convince a grand jury under the most favorable circumstances, I doubt you can convince a civil jury that will hear both sides of the story.

The denial I was referring to relates to your thinking that a situation like Watson coming to the Browns doesn't implicate your morals. But it does. It offends your morals. What I'm suggesting is if you analyze the situation objectively, you will likely come to the conclusion that Watson is being framed in a massive money grab. Therefore, you would not have any moral conflict with him coming to the Browns. Just accepting the allegations at face value is giving up too easy. Don't even get me started on cops...

If you don't like BR, maybe consider the fact they were quoting what was written by Jason Lloyd in The Athletic.

Desperate? Nope. They were BOSSES. They did what they had to do to get the best QB available. For the record, at least one other team complained that they would have matched the Browns' offer. Deshaun didn't give them a chance. He actually wanted Cleveland. Contrary to the popular media mentality of belittling the Browns at every opportunity by saying he wanted nothing to do with Cleveland. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10030422-report-1-nfl-team-wouldve-matched-deshaun-watsons-browns-contract-if-given-chance

I don't think you quite understood my post. My point is that, as a Browns fan, you can deal with what Watson is alleged to have done in one of two ways: 1. Denial approach. :I don't get my morals from the NFL anyway so it doesn't matter what he may have done." 2. Information approach. "I read what he supposedly did and it really isn't that troubling." It seems you may be adopting the better approach (#2). So, we are in agreement.

Not for me, for the human brain. You are effected by everything you see. In fact, that's why you posted this topic. To try to reconcile the dissonance between the Browns signing a star QB and your personal problem with what the QB is alleged to have done. It's basically denial, but I would suggest that there is a better way than denial. Dig deeper into the facts.

What Ben did was very different from what Watson did. Ben actually followed a woman into the bathroom, stationed someone outside the door and raped her in the bathroom. Multiple witnesses backed the woman's claim. Watson may or may not have paid for a happy ending by massage providers who were so shocked that they had repeat appointments.

That's not how morals work. You don't don't get to pick and choose where they come from. You get them from everything and everyone you experience.

No one would draft a settlement agreement based on percentage of earnings. It's almost always just a lump sum. Even a judgement would likely be a lump sum if it went to trial, which it won't.

First, let me start by saying that I was initially relieved when Watson said no to the Browns. I should also say that I'm an attorney whose main focus has been working with victims of domestic and sexual violence. Predominantly, but not exclusively, women. My gut reaction was to side with the accusers and I certainly didn't want to have anything to do with someone who, based on what I've heard, appeared to be some kind of a sexual predator. I was very disappointed when the Browns subsequently dealt for Watson. How can I hold my head up as a Browns fan after this? More importantly, I have two teenage boys and a daughter to think of. I was really upset about the signing. Then I dug deeper into the Watson allegations. I researched the Texas grand jury proceedings and actually read the civil filings. Let's start with the criminal matters. It turns out that there were potentially 12 criminal cases against Deshaun. The prosecutor decided that 2 of the cases were nonsense and then decided against pursuing a 3rd, presumably because it either had no merit or weakened the other 9 cases. So the prosecutor therefore presented 9 cases to the grand jury. The jury decided that none of the 9 cases showed PROBABLE CAUSE that Watson committed any crime. NONE of them. The standard here is probable cause. Not beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, it's the same standard used in the civil cases against Watson. Not a high standard. The prosecution, who under tremendous public pressure to bring this case, could not show that Watson more likely than not engaged in the activity charged in ANY of 9 cases. Then I started wondering why Watson wasn’t also charged for soliciting prostitution? If this was really about Watson wanting to engage in sexual acts for money, wouldn't it stand to reason that they would have charged for solicitation? In Texas, you don't even need to be soliciting a "prostitute." Just the act of requesting sexual acts for money is enough. Kraft was. Why not Deshaun? Is it that such charges might raise the faintest hint that the victims may have been somehow complicit. This would be inconsistent with both the criminal and civil matters and not would reflect well on the plaintiffs . But surely, it would have been easy enough to prove. Unless of course the prosecution did not feel comfortable that they should or could prove it. On top of the Texas prosecution, Watson also agreed to be interviewed by the FBI. Nothing came of that either. Would you agree to be questioned by the FBI if you thought you did anything wrong? The conclusion is that Watson committed no crime. Let's consider the civil lawsuits. If the FBI and grand jury couldn't find that Watson, did anything wrong, there is probably no compelling reason to think that a civil jury, using the same standard, will find any different. I read the civil filings and my takeaway was very different from what is portrayed in the media. I didn't see a sexual predator who forced anyone to do anything. What I read about was a young man, who was kind of polite but also naive and stupid in his interactions with the massage therapists. The stories told by the therapists by and large don't mention him overcoming any of the plaintiffs by force. They say he asked them if they would do certain things. Maybe he wanted a massage with a 'happy ending'; or maybe not. Many 25 year old men would probably enjoy that. I don't think it would have come as a shock to these massage therapists that such a thing exists. But some say they were shocked. Yet, these plaintiffs had repeat appointments with Deshaun, after initially "shocking" and "inappropriate" encounters. Why go back for seconds if you really are shocked by a client's behavior? Maybe the money was too good? Maybe they saw a huge payday. In any event, these cases will never go to a jury; they will be settled out of court, but not for anywhere near what the plaintiffs expect. The bulk of the settlement will go to the plaintiff's attorney. By the way, Watson made a very interesting condition of the settlement; no confidentiality clause. Because he doesn’t want anyone to say that he is paying for anyone’s silence…and possibly because he wants to be able to tell what happened from his point of view. If Watson isn’t found criminally or civilly liable, and I think he will not, will we say well, he’s probably guilty anyway? Is that how we would want to be treated? It’s unfortunate that in the current media climate, allegations seems to be as good as a convictions. Everyone deserves fairness. If he isn't found guilty, then he is innocent. If he is innocent, then he already gave up a year practicing his profession because of charges that could not hold up in court. It would be a shame for him to endure more suspension. In any event, I know how to talk to my kids, I’m over the drama, and I will support the Browns in what promises to be a very exciting season.

I like WR Drake London. Especially for a QB who likes to throw high. https://www.espn.com/college-football/player/_/id/4426502/drake-london

Pickett is Weeden 2.0 and Baker gets another year.

Browns get a Wild Card if: Broncos beat the Chargers this week Broncos beat the Chiefs next week and Chargers beat the Raiders next week. Even if that happens, which it won't, Browns don't deserve to play in this post-season.

Landry slipped because he tried to stop in his tracks to get back to an under thrown ball. It's 100% on Baker.

No, he doesn't. Why would the coach have to play a starter who is clearly hobbled? Just because the starter, who has more bravado than brains wants to? That's dereliction of his head coaching duties. The medical staff may have cleared him medically to play, but it was obvious he was not able to play at a level any better than our backup would have. Baker contributed nothing other than worsening our chances against the Ravens.

I don't have a problem with coaches learning on the job. Every head coach is a rookie when they start. Learning on the job is par for course. What I don't like is if a head coach let's a QB walk all over him and make decisions that the head coach should be making. I see no other explanation for letting Baker play against Detroit. We all know Baker shouldn't have started the game. We all know Baker should've had an extra week to rest up. We all know that Case would have done at least as well or better than a hobbled Baker. Baker literally could not have done any worse and still won the game. There was no logical reason for the coach to have started Baker other than Baker wanted to start.

I agree with you that 'deserved' really isn't the right word here. I think the right word is 'earned.' Has Baker earned top money? I've been a Baker fan from the start, but an honest assessment would suggest that he has not yet earned top money. I would offer a middle of the road amount to keep him, simply because he's the best we've had in a long time. He isn't garbage, but he also hasn't shown that he can put the team on his back and win a game that we would've lost without him.

There is a lot of merit to your point of view. OBJ is not a system or a team player. He gets off on doing his own thing. The reason he has to make crazy circus catches is probably because he's never where he's supposed to be.

LOL, no. The universe is fine. There's just a raving lunatic stumbling by. I would just let him walk by. Do. Not. Wave!

Orange Crush...if the Broncos of the 70s and 80s didn't already use it.

One of my boys just entered the room with his arms raised in victory mode! I love that we get to see the red carpet walk for at least another year!

Greedy was some dude we drafted in 2013...

RIP

Yes...but if we lose to the Steelers and the Ravens win out, we could likely be completely out of the playoffs. That's just bizarre with potentially sub 500 teams getting into the playoffs in the NFC.