Mr. WEO

Those expectations haven't been met in 14 years. Herman was the only bright spot for that program for all those years. It's a program that exited the national championship discussion a while ago. Sark had their first losing record in their last 5 seasons.

They were free to. You'd have to ask them. They probably felt it would be a nonstarter in their negotiations and they weren't willing to hold out over that. Exactly. If "the NFL" wanted to punish the Browns for their stupidity, they would have started to do so decades ago. Plus, Haslam's poor decisions themselves perpetually "punish the Browns". I think there is no chance the owners are telling Goddell to screw the Browns over a dumb contract. Makes no sense.

Players have always been free to demand fully guaranteed contracts. Some owners (the ones who don't worry about putting money in escrow) will offer it (to keep a guy like, say, Herbert--who is worth more than Watson in any case), some won't (those who would rather not)--and they will make their traditional offer which the player can take or holdout, be franchised etc. Anyway, whatever the effect this contract may have on future contracts will have no impact on the the NFL's ultimate decision of the length of the suspension of Watson. It will have nothing to do with "punishing" the Browns or Haslam for the contract.

It wouldn't make any sense at all to link any potential punishment for Watson to the contract the Browns offered him as far a way for the other owners to punish Haslam for the offer. That's what the other poster was suggesting. Owners don't care about dumb contracts by other owners---because all of them are getting "guaranteed money".

correct. So how would a long suspension of Watson change the contract offerings of owners re:huge/fully guaranteed money? I don’t get the connection..,

so coming down hard on a serial molester will discourage other owners from offering fully guaranteed deals in the future?

This is the risk of jumping into a thread at the 69th page...

these guys pumping Jackson at this point have lost their....objectivity.

It could only have the opposite result....

Deceased players "6 feet" under the rest? Nice! Wustoff, Ford and Isotoner could finance the OJ one. And who is "we"? Any naming revenue/etc goes to the Bills.

ever the temperamental artist.

"Silly"? These threads, absent details, invite speculation to fill that void. That should be obvious to you, and beyond debate. We are all encouraged she is out of the hospital and recovering. The discussion of why she was ill is natural, not silly, exercise. If my guess (based on "ICU", and "rehab" and a team of doctors) at a diagnosis is "erroneous", then correct it with fact. That would end all speculation here.

Herman had no losing seasons.

He's not. Someone upstream speculated that it was possible he could.

Dang!--and I KNEW that! Sorry, bro.

"Must" in the vernacular. But yes could be. There's no harm in speculating: such threads naturally encourage it, given no details even in a second thread on the same topic. It's not as though anyone here is infringing on privacy. It's a legitimate topic of discussion.

that she had died?

right about what?

Must be a stroke.

He would have to admit he is a serial sexual predator and molester of nonconsenting women before he could accuse his former employer of wrongfully abetting him in this. That's probably not the best legal advice...

Like Bills v. Jags?

None of that seems to translate into significant NFL success for these QBs. Texas hasn't been very relevant for years, despite the HS talent in the state.

It always seems odd to me that too QB recruits with NFL aspirations would head to schools like Texas and OSU.

Will he play as soon as he wants at Texas? Will Manning?

I did, none of them hint at Watson saying Houston knew or should have known that he was an uncontrollable serial sexual predator. Wouldn't Watson have to admit this is what he is in order to bring such a law suit against the Texans wouldn't he?