Deshaun Watson Traded to Cleveland (3FRPs)

[lumberjackchris]

This is where I’m at, but I get what you’re saying @ET80

[ET80]

1 hour ago, ET80 said:

That's bad. That's VERY bad.

Random sidenote - Jack Easterby was part of the New England FO when Robert Kraft was busted for solicitation. So, if anyone had the playbook on how to avoid such a legal mess... it would be Easterby.

[ET80]

1 minute ago, lumberjackchris said:

This is where I’m at, but I get what you’re saying @ET80

My stance is that it's somewhere in the middle - not as bad as the picture illustrates in the Times article, but equally not as good as "they didn't know..." 

It's going to come down to why Naccara gave Watson the NDA. If there's legitimate human error here, then the Texans still need to be held liable for their actions in SOME capacity. Aiding a person in a crime is never good, we know that - and a multi billion dollar organization needs to hold itself accountable for oversight in this sort of situation. 

That's best case scenario, too.

[ET80]

37 minutes ago, ET80 said:

My stance is that it's somewhere in the middle - not as bad as the picture illustrates in the Times article, but equally not as good as "they didn't know..." 

It's going to come down to why Naccara gave Watson the NDA. If there's legitimate human error here, then the Texans still need to be held liable for their actions in SOME capacity. Aiding a person in a crime is never good, we know that - and a multi billion dollar organization needs to hold itself accountable for oversight in this sort of situation. 

That's best case scenario, too.

Further reading - Naccara gave Watson the NDA after Watson shared Nia Smith's "I could ruin you" DM in relation to his actions.

So - question now becomes - how did Watson (who still denies these accusations) present this situation to Naccara? Does Naccara hold liability if Watson misrepresented this situation? 

So the statement by Brandon Scott is much more in line with that detail.

[jch1911]

1 hour ago, ET80 said:

Random sidenote - Jack Easterby was part of the New England FO when Robert Kraft was busted for solicitation. So, if anyone had the playbook on how to avoid such a legal mess... it would be Easterby.

Supposedly that's WHY Easterby left Pats... didn't hurt that he saw Baby Huey as a potential mark

[ET80]

58 minutes ago, ET80 said:

Further reading - Naccara gave Watson the NDA after Watson shared Nia Smith's "I could ruin you" DM in relation to his actions.

So - question now becomes - how did Watson (who still denies these accusations) present this situation to Naccara? Does Naccara hold liability if Watson misrepresented this situation? 

So the statement by Brandon Scott is much more in line with that detail.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2022/06/08/what-did-the-texans-know-and-what-should-they-have-known-about-deshaun-watsons-massage-habits/amp/

This sums up my thoughts pretty well. At the very least, the Texans are guilty of not asking the right questions:

Does this mean Naccara knew that Watson was receiving or seeking sexual activity during massages, or that Watson was potentially crossing the line? No. Does it mean that Naccara, a former Secret Service agent who surely knows how to assess and neutralize all sorts of threats, should have asked Watson some pointed questions and/or given him some candid advice on what should and shouldn’t be done during these massages? Absolutely.

[Blaze]

3 hours ago, ET80 said:

Further reading - Naccara gave Watson the NDA after Watson shared Nia Smith's "I could ruin you" DM in relation to his actions.

So - question now becomes - how did Watson (who still denies these accusations) present this situation to Naccara? Does Naccara hold liability if Watson misrepresented this situation? 

So the statement by Brandon Scott is much more in line with that detail.

Watson has proven that he hasn't been upforward with alot of this information to the Texans and especially Cleveland. That's why the Times report is so significant. Texans may be somewhat liable, but it's Dehsuan that made all these choices. 66 women in 17 months. Then specifically stated he didn't care if they was qualified. Said that in court might I add. Also stated the Texans weren't aware of all of this.

He is getting another yr off. 

[ET80]

18 minutes ago, Blaze said:

Watson has proven that he hasn't been upforward with alot of this information to the Texans and especially Cleveland. That's why the Times report is so significant. Texans may be somewhat liable, but it's Dehsuan that made all these choices. 66 women in 17 months. Then specifically stated he didn't care if they was qualified. Said that in court might I add. Also stated the Texans weren't aware of all of this.

He is getting another yr off. 

Ultimately I don't disagree with any of this... But my question is intent vs letter of the law: As an organization, doesn't the franchise have some level of obligation in determining why Watson needed an NDA to begin with? What are the events that led to this request?

Yes, Watson lied - to a lot of people, too. That's what criminals and morally bankrupt people do, they lie. He will be punished - severely - for this, on several fronts. As a multi billion dollar organization and a member of an exclusive collective known as the NFL, do the Texans have some sort of responsibility to perform due diligence before providing a solution such as an NDA (in truth or in lie)? I'm struggling with this one, I legit don't know.

Corporate Governance is a thing, and - from an organizational perspective - it feels like the Texans could have done more background checking on this odd situation before it spiraled out of control. Would it have stopped Watson? Highly unlikely, he's entitled and didn't feel like he was doing anything wrong, he had resources and people who were willing to kowtow to his needs. But, did the organization "do the right thing" when presented with information that eventually snowballed into where it is now?

I dunno. I'm at a loss. I was happy to say it wasn't my problem anymore... but I think we all knew this was a problem that wasn't going away.

[tab]

2 hours ago, ET80 said:

Ultimately I don't disagree with any of this... But my question is intent vs letter of the law: As an organization, doesn't the franchise have some level of obligation in determining why Watson needed an NDA to begin with? What are the events that led to this request?

in the article, Watson said he got the NDA after mentioning to the security guy that a woman had told him she was going to "expose him".

Like IDK a massage is a pretty intimate thing by nature, I dont think it would necessarily be weird for a prominent figure to have a therapist sign one (In case someone starts talking about... idk a weird birthmark you're ashamed of or something. idk). I dont see where we gave Watson an NDA and told him "make a bunch of copies of this and have your therapists sign it and then you can do whatever you want to them and they cant say anything." Maybe Watson assumed that an NDA could have that kind of power. He seems extremely dumb about everything but football in hindsight

 

this stuff with the team is too vague and nebulous right now, so unless something really incriminating comes out, i'm kind of going to stop talking about this for a bit. There's just too much speculation

Edited June 8, 2022 by tab

[ET80]

1 minute ago, tab said:

He seems extremely dumb about everything but football in hindsight

[Blaze]

2 hours ago, ET80 said:

Ultimately I don't disagree with any of this... But my question is intent vs letter of the law: As an organization, doesn't the franchise have some level of obligation in determining why Watson needed an NDA to begin with? What are the events that led to this request?

Yes, Watson lied - to a lot of people, too. That's what criminals and morally bankrupt people do, they lie. He will be punished - severely - for this, on several fronts. As a multi billion dollar organization and a member of an exclusive collective known as the NFL, do the Texans have some sort of responsibility to perform due diligence before providing a solution such as an NDA (in truth or in lie)? I'm struggling with this one, I legit don't know.

Corporate Governance is a thing, and - from an organizational perspective - it feels like the Texans could have done more background checking on this odd situation before it spiraled out of control. Would it have stopped Watson? Highly unlikely, he's entitled and didn't feel like he was doing anything wrong, he had resources and people who were willing to kowtow to his needs. But, did the organization "do the right thing" when presented with information that eventually snowballed into where it is now?

I dunno. I'm at a loss. I was happy to say it wasn't my problem anymore... but I think we all knew this was a problem that wasn't going away.

I'd imagine alot of professional sports organizations provide NDA's to their players. I'd think it's very common place. I use Derek Jeter as an example. All those parties he threw and everyone involved had to sign a NDA. Athletes are prey to trouble with those high salaries. Problem is, Deshaun used his celebrity to be the predator. 

 

Also, if I remember correctly, he made copies of the 1 NDA he was given. Doubt Texans expected 66 therapists. Ultimately, Deshaun been receiving bad advice through this whole ordeal. It has ruined his career.

Edited June 8, 2022 by Blaze

[Pastor Dillon]

We gonna get a a high first for Watson from the browns and then we are gonna get a 1st taken away as a punishment. 

[ET80]

52 minutes ago, Pastor Dillon said:

We gonna get a a high first for Watson from the browns and then we are gonna get a 1st taken away as a punishment. 

https://sports.yahoo.com/attorney-houston-texans-will-be-added-as-defendants-in-deshaun-watson-civil-suits-221644902.html

Yup.

Deshaun Watson might be the worst thing to ever happen to this franchise.

[Pastor Dillon]

Listening to the latest allegation and it really doesn’t make much sense. She claims she refused to do what he asked, she didn’t mention being forcefully held and then says that he places boldly fluids on her face. I don’t see that as plausible unless she placed herself in a particular area or she was forcibly made to be in that area. It seems like saying “Watson held me down while excreting boldly fluids on me” would be the charge that would get him but she doesn’t allege that. Just seems kinda of improbable to suggest that it happened against her will without the use of force. 
 

edit: I realized this sounds like I’m saying I don’t believe the girl, so to clarify what I’m saying is I don’t understand why they are not pushing the force narrative more. It’s seems like they are allowing the door to stay open to say that Watson never forced anyone to do anything. If I was her attorney, I’d play up the force issue a lot more. 

Edited June 9, 2022 by Pastor Dillon

[jch1911]

2 hours ago, Pastor Dillon said:

Listening to the latest allegation and it really doesn’t make much sense. She claims she refused to do what he asked, she didn’t mention being forcefully held and then says that he places boldly fluids on her face. I don’t see that as plausible unless she placed herself in a particular area or she was forcibly made to be in that area. It seems like saying “Watson held me down while excreting boldly fluids on me” would be the charge that would get him but she doesn’t allege that. Just seems kinda of improbable to suggest that it happened against her will without the use of force. 
 

edit: I realized this sounds like I’m saying I don’t believe the girl, so to clarify what I’m saying is I don’t understand why they are not pushing the force narrative more. It’s seems like they are allowing the door to stay open to say that Watson never forced anyone to do anything. If I was her attorney, I’d play up the force issue a lot more.