Jump to content

Featured Replies

comment_1761843
9 hours ago, claptonrocks said:

I doubt a team would give any pick for him

(maybe a 7th)..

Just wasn't that good.

Surely there are former NFL punters awaiting a call...

 

Drue Chrisman is out there and briefly was a Steeler in 2021, unless he’s focusing on his Uber Eats bike career.

comment_1761844
2 hours ago, UncleEarl said:

 

The NFL could save the Clowns a lot of  money buy giving him another big suspension.  Who knows.  The guy is a disaster. 

Not only that, there is now video of Joel Bitonio slapping away Watson’s outstretched hand to help him up after a play. Some are interpreting this as players losing confidence in him. 

 

I said when the Browns traded for him and then signed him to that ridiculous contract that I wasn’t overly impressed with him. 

comment_1761851
8 hours ago, Shebengal said:

Drue Chrisman is out there and briefly was a Steeler in 2021, unless he’s focusing on his Uber Eats bike career.

They could put in a call to Whisky's in Lawrenceburg and leave a message.  He dines or hits the bar there fairly often.

comment_1761852
10 hours ago, T-Dub said:

 

 

Not his MO, he's a strangler & likes to arrange the bodies like a tea party.

 

We are talking about Russell Wilson, right?

 

:ninja:

 

LOL nobody is talking about Russell Wilson.

Aren't Russell and Wilson two sporting goods companies that make jock straps?

  • Author
comment_1761883
16 hours ago, BlackJesus said:

 

The Browns want out of paying his 45 million guaranteed each of the next 3 years and their only out is if another alleged crime emerged. How convenient for them. 🤔

 

I think he's a guilty POS who should be in prison... but I also think Cleveland is not above creating a new allegation for their own benefit. 

There is a difference between a crime and a lawsuit.  I doubt the NFL could void his contract over a civil case but I am not an attorney. 

comment_1761885
6 minutes ago, SF2 said:

There is a difference between a crime and a lawsuit.  I doubt the NFL could void his contract over a civil case but I am not an attorney. 

 

The contract he signed with the Browns stated that all his past lawsuits be disclosed, which they were.........minus this new one.  

  • Author
comment_1761888
5 minutes ago, Randle P McMurphy said:

 

The contract he signed with the Browns stated that all his past lawsuits be disclosed, which they were.........minus this new one.  

Again, no idea how this whole mess works out.  I would think this out of the blue new civil lawsuit would be looked at with some skepticism but the guy is a creep. 
 

 BTW, Jameis Winston is the backup. Dude can sling it but is a turnover machine. Hard to believe he has been in the league 9 years. 

comment_1761892
7 minutes ago, SF2 said:

Again, no idea how this whole mess works out.  I would think this out of the blue new civil lawsuit would be looked at with some skepticism but the guy is a creep. 
 

 BTW, Jameis Winston is the backup. Dude can sling it but is a turnover machine. Hard to believe he has been in the league 9 years. 

 

Yep.  I'd bet the team would rally around Winston if they're pissed off at Watson just like they did last year with Flacco.  Let's hope they

stick with Watson as Joe has a hard time against Cleveland as it is for some reason!  😕

comment_1761897
14 minutes ago, Randle P McMurphy said:

 

The contract he signed with the Browns stated that all his past lawsuits be disclosed, which they were.........minus this new one.  

To throw a new wrinkle into this: If he had no knowledge of a potential new piece of litigation to come, he would still not be in violation of contract language. Now, if it was stipulated that knowledge of all potential litigants--whether filed or not--must be disclosed, then there could be something to talk about. Again, without reading the contract, this is guessing. 

 

(I do contract litigation work for governmental entities in Ohio, BTW). 

comment_1761898
1 minute ago, Le Tigre said:

To throw a new wrinkle into this: If he had no knowledge of a potential new piece of litigation to come, he would still not be in violation of contract language. Now, if it was stipulated that knowledge of all potential litigants--whether filed or not--must be disclosed, then there could be something to talk about. Again, without reading the contract, this is guessing. 

 

(I do contract litigation work for governmental entities in Ohio, BTW). 

 

There you go then.  That's the $64,000 question.  (Showing my age!)  IF it stipulated ALL.  

comment_1761899
2 minutes ago, Randle P McMurphy said:

 

There you go then.  That's the $64,000 question.  (Showing my age!)  IF it stipulated ALL.  

I still use the same phrase! 😄

 

Trust me on this: it might not apply directly to ALL. That is the nuances of personal services contracts. Both sides like to keep enough gray in the language, and stay away from absolutes. I would like to believe that CFT put some poison pills into it for some protection...but since two sides form an agreement...likely his side diluted the poison to perhaps just getting sick, and not expiring from it. 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...
Background Picker
Customize Layout