Houston and Miami could have Deshaun Watson deal (update - no deal prior to trade deadline)

[Big Blitz]

Good for Rosenthal 

 

 

 

[YoloinOhio]

9 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

Good for Rosenthal 

 

 

 

I still don’t get why Miami is on his wish list. Unless it’s the FL massage life which, ew. 

Edited October 25, 2021 by YoloinOhio

[jkeerie]

1 minute ago, YoloinOhio said:

I still don’t get why Miami is on his wish list. Unless it’s the FL massage life which, ew. 

If he has his choice between Carolina or Miami, he should choose Carolina.  Fewer competitive teams.

[Doc]

4 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

It is from a legal perspective. The law is interested in actions not contexts. Your reason for a change of approach can't be context. That is arbitrary. 

 

2 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

Again, they can tell him all of that, but if he challenges it,  Goodell has to explain his decision not to xempt him under circumstances in which he has exempted others.   His answer can’t be “I’ll do whatever I want” because that’s no longer true.

 

Also. given that the next team will be getting a player who is at least exempted, possibly suspended and at worst criminally charged as the legal process goes forward, how does Watson’s value to the Texans as trade go up the longer they wait?

 

All Goodell has to say is that the purpose/"action" of the exempt list is to prevent the player from playing while under investigation for serious allegations, and the Texans making Watson inactive accomplishes the same thing.  Again the precedent is to exempt the player, but this is a case where the player doesn't want to play for the team anyway, so they inactivate him and obviate the need for exempting him.  A trading team should know this, but if they don't want to comply, Goodell can and will prevent him from playing, whether it be by exempting him or PCP'ing him.

Edited October 25, 2021 by Doc

[purple haze]

5 hours ago, Doc said:

Darnold is who I thought he was after his sophomore season of college. 

Yep.  Always been turnover prone and had inconsistent awareness.  The difference is the players he’s playing against now are much better than the teams at the NCAA level and he can’t make up for those mistakes as easily.  He’d make a good backup though.  

[Doc]

If I were the Texans, I'd wait on Philly (which means after the season, when there should also be more clarity on Watson's situation, and it's only about $7M more in salary they'll be paying him). Hurts isn't the guy and they have 3-1st rounders in 2022.  Take 2 of them and 1 in 2023 and get him out of the AFC.

 

24 minutes ago, purple haze said:

Yep.  Always been turnover prone and had inconsistent awareness.  The difference is the players he’s playing against now are much better than the teams at the NCAA level and he can’t make up for those mistakes as easily.  He’d make a good backup though.  

 

His problem is between his ears.  Always has been, always will be. 

Edited October 25, 2021 by Doc

[davefan66]

Don’t see Miami being the final destination if Tua is part of the trade.  Darnold would be the better prospect, I guess.

[Doc Brown]

3 hours ago, Doc said:

If I were the Texans, I'd wait on Philly (which means after the season, when there should also be more clarity on Watson's situation, and it's only about $7M more in salary they'll be paying him). Hurts isn't the guy and they have 3-1st rounders in 2022.  Take 2 of them and 1 in 2023 and get him out of the AFC.

The no trade clause really ties their hands as I believe it was reported right before the season Watson didn't want to go to Philly.  Who knows where his head's at now though?  From everything I've read it's down to the Fins and the Panthers and it makes sense for the Texans to pull the trigger now if the price is right.  If neither team wants to pull the trigger than Watson may be forced to join a team he previously didn't want to go to.  Eagles are a possibility.

Edited October 25, 2021 by Doc Brown

[GunnerBill]

RapSheet just said on GMFB that his understanding is Watson will NOT go onto the commissioner's exempt list if traded. As far as the NFL is concerned they are judging it on his situation and that situation is unchanged. He would go on the list if charged with a felony. 

 

Edit: on the basis this means he can play this year don't the Panthers who are still alive at 3-4 make a ton more sense than Miami who are dead at 1-6?

Edited October 25, 2021 by GunnerBill

[thenorthremembers]

30 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

RapSheet just said on GMFB that his understanding is Watson will NOT go onto the commissioner's exempt list if traded. As far as the NFL is concerned they are judging it on his situation and that situation is unchanged. He would go on the list if charged with a felony. 

 

Edit: on the basis this means he can play this year don't the Panthers who are still alive at 3-4 make a ton more sense than Miami who are dead at 1-6?

Trying to think back, but was Josh Gordon ever charged with a felony when he went on the list?  Goodell has to go.

Edited October 25, 2021 by thenorthremembers

[mannc]

33 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

RapSheet just said on GMFB that his understanding is Watson will NOT go onto the commissioner's exempt list if traded. As far as the NFL is concerned they are judging it on his situation and that situation is unchanged. He would go on the list if charged with a felony. 

 

 

Then why aren’t the Texans playing him?

 

 

[GunnerBill]

7 minutes ago, thenorthremembers said:

Trying to think back, but was Josh Gordon ever charged with a felony when he went on the list?  Goodell has to go.

 

I think he only ever went on that list as an interim measure. Gordon was suspended (multiple times) for a breach of the league's substance abuse policy. Suspended is different than placed on the exempt list. I don't disagree on Goodell mishandling this though. I said that from the start. I am sure there have been players put on the list without having committed a felony in the past.... but regardless.... according to RapSheet (who is basically the league's official mouth piece) Watson will be eligible to play this season if traded. 

 

2 minutes ago, mannc said:

Then why aren’t the Texans playing him?

 

Because he said he won't play for them again, they have accepted that, especially with the baggage of his legal situation and are trying to start afresh. 

Edited October 25, 2021 by GunnerBill

[mannc]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I think he only ever went on that list as an interim measure. Gordon was suspended (multiple times) for a breach of the league's substance abuse policy. Suspended is different than placed on the exempt list. 

 

Because he said he won't play for them again, they have accepted that, especially with the baggage of his legal situation and are trying to start afresh. 

That makes no sense. If Watson refuses to play, they don’t have to pay him.  Are the Texans running a charity operation now? 

[GunnerBill]

Here is the clip from GMFB:

 

https://twitter.com/RapSheet/status/1452620626972262405?s=20

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

9 hours ago, Doc said:

 

 

All Goodell has to say is that the purpose/"action" of the exempt list is to prevent the player from playing while under investigation for serious allegations, and the Texans making Watson inactive accomplishes the same thing.  Again the precedent is to exempt the player, but this is a case where the player doesn't want to play for the team anyway, so they inactivate him and obviate the need for exempting him.  A trading team should know this, but if they don't want to comply, Goodell can and will prevent him from playing, whether it be by exempting him or PCP'ing him.

 

The player, not the Commissioner nor the team prevented himself from playing.  And that decision predates the charges.

 

The longer time goes by (coming up on 8 months), it gets harder for the NFL to claim it's still investigating so intensely that only his next team should find him on the exemption list.

 

Exemption is clearly a form of discipline--preventing a player form performing his job (with little due process), that only the Commissioner can mete out. 

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, mannc said:

That makes no sense. If Watson refuses to play, they don’t have to pay him.  Are the Texans running a charity operation now? 

 

Nothing the Houston Texans do makes sense. They are not playing him because neither he, nor they, are interested in him playing for them again. 

[mannc]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Nothing the Houston Texans do makes sense. They are not playing him because neither he, nor they, are interested in him playing for them again. 

Sorry, I don’t believe that.  They have been told if they suit him up, the league will suspend him or put him on the commissioner’s exempt list. 

[GunnerBill]

5 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

The player, not the Commissioner nor the team prevented himself from playing.  And that decision predates the charges.

 

The longer time goes by (coming up on 8 months), it gets harder for the NFL to claim it's still investigating so intensely that only his next team should find him on the exemption list.

 

Exemption is clearly a form of discipline--preventing a player form performing his job (with little due process), that only the Commissioner can mete out. 

 

I think based on what Rapoport is saying Doc's theory is pretty much disproven at this point. There is no gentleman's agreement that they are all in on that he won't be put on the exemption list as long as he is inactive but would if there was any chance of him playing. That is not the case. The NFL does not intend to put him on the list even if traded. 

 

I don't claim that this proves my theory that the legal advice would be that is risky for them to do so.... it might be that but it might also, based on what Rapoport says, just mean the NFL don't feel that the allegations justify the exempt list unless and until criminal charges are brought. 

 

1 minute ago, mannc said:

Sorry, I don’t believe that.  They have been told if they suit him up, the league will suspend him or put him on the commissioner’s exempt list. 

 

So you think Rapoport is wrong? I mean he literally works for the league. 

Edited October 25, 2021 by GunnerBill

[mannc]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I think based on what Rapoport is saying Doc's theory is pretty much disproven at this point. There is no gentleman's agreement that they are all in on that he won't be put on the exemption list as long as he is inactive but would if there was any chance of him playing. That is not the case. The NFL does not intend to put him on the list even if traded. 

 

I don't claim that this proves my theory that the legal advice would be that is risky for them to do so.... it might be that but it might also, based on what Rapoport says, just mean the NFL don't feel that the allegations justify the exempt list unless and until criminal charges are brought. 

So you’re saying Doc is wrong because Rappaport, who’s wrong all the time, has reported something?

4 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I think based on what Rapoport is saying Doc's theory is pretty much disproven at this point. There is no gentleman's agreement that they are all in on that he won't be put on the exemption list as long as he is inactive but would if there was any chance of him playing. That is not the case. The NFL does not intend to put him on the list even if traded. 

 

I don't claim that this proves my theory that the legal advice would be that is risky for them to do so.... it might be that but it might also, based on what Rapoport says, just mean the NFL don't feel that the allegations justify the exempt list unless and until criminal charges are brought. 

 

 

So you think Rapoport is wrong? I mean he literally works for the league. 

He works for nfl.com and/or NFL network. Not the same thing. And he’s been reporting (apparently) false Watson trade rumors for months.

[Mr. WEO]

5 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I think based on what Rapoport is saying Doc's theory is pretty much disproven at this point. There is no gentleman's agreement that they are all in on that he won't be put on the exemption list as long as he is inactive but would if there was any chance of him playing. That is not the case. The NFL does not intend to put him on the list even if traded. 

 

I don't claim that this proves my theory that the legal advice would be that is risky for them to do so.... it might be that but it might also, based on what Rapoport says, just mean the NFL don't feel that the allegations justify the exempt list unless and until criminal charges are brought. 

 

 

So you think Rapoport is wrong? I mean he literally works for the league. 

 

 

Since I share this theory, I'll go ahead and confirm this! lol

 

But yes, it seems that the reason he isn't on the exemption list is because the NFL doesn't think he should  be on it.  Perhaps their investigation has give them serious doubt as to the validity of the complaints--who knows?  My guess is that Goodell is hearing form several of his bosses that he should not stand in the way of this trade.