'Predator': Is NFL's Roger Goodell Overstepping Bounds of Decency with Deshaun Watson Label?

Just because Goodell has the power to essentially decree that the former Houston Texas quarterback is a predator does not mean he should do so.

In a technical sense, Roger Goodell calling Deshaun Watson's behavior toward his alleged victims “predatory” is not an example of the NFL commissioner overstepping his bounds.

Why? The CBA includes "Article 46,'' which gives the commissioner incredible power in regard to punishing any player.

But what about in a "fair and just'' sense?

Just because Goodell has the power to essentially decree that the former Houston Texas quarterback is a predator does not mean he should do so.

And in that sense, Goodell - as he often does playing the role of judge, jury and executioner even though he has no legal background - has indeed overstepped his bounds.

Why does Goodell believe he can label the now-Browns QB's behavior “egregious” and “predatory” as he pushes for Watson to get more than the present recommendation of a six-game suspension?

“Because we’ve seen the evidence. She (disciplinary officer Sue L. Robinson] was very clear about the evidence,” Goodell said, via The Washington Post‘s Mark Maske. “She reinforced the evidence that there (were) multiple violations here and they were egregious and it was predatory behavior.”

Goodell obviously believes he's offered a powerful answer here. But in reality, all he's done is raise questions. To wit:

*Why does the NFL insist on being in the business of "evidence''? Wouldn't the players, the league and the public be better-served by letting actual police departments, prosecutors and judges handle that?

*If the NFL accepts Robinson's wisdom and judgment about the "evidence,'' how can it in the next breath reject Robinson's wisdom and judgment about the punishment?

*If there is "evidence'' of a crime, and evidence that he is a "predator'' - and we're not taking a side here - why has Watson not been convicted of a crime?

*Why is the NFL's view of an appropriate punishment a reported minimum 17-game suspension and a fine of over $5 million? What is the precedent for that? Where is there an established consistency in that level of punishment?

*If Deshaun Watson is a "predator,'' why would the NFL let him play - ever?

Watson is reportedly willing to settle the case with the NFL and accept an eight-game suspension and a $5 million fine to avoid that year-long ban. We cannot agree that that is "the right number'' because we don't know what "the right number'' is.

We do know that Watson, who was traded to the Browns this offseason for six draft picks, faced 24 civil lawsuits accusing him of sexual assault and sexual misconduct during massage therapy sessions and that as of this summer the three-time Pro Bowler had settled 23 of his 24 lawsuits.

We also know he continues to proclaim his innocence.

"I’ve never forced anyone," Watson said after the first day of mandatory mini-camp. "I never harassed anyone or I never disrespected anyone. I’ve never assaulted anyone. I’ve been saying it from the beginning and I’m going to continue to say it until the facts come out."

Meanwhile, the NFL will continue to essentially call him a "predator.'' Because it can.

Want the latest in breaking and insider news for the Houston Texans? Click Here

Follow Texans Daily on Twitter and Facebook

Make sure to subscribe to our daily podcast @LockedOnTexans today! Click here To Listen.