Any defendant who has ever been tried is willing to respond by bringing the plaintiff in return. Most defendants realize, with the advice of a reasonable and thoughtful lawyer, that this is not a good idea.
Antonio Brown is not one of these defendants.
Brown opposed Britney Taylor for defamation. and interfering with his NFL capabilities and recommendations, according to Jeremy Fowler of ESPN.com. In my opinion, based on 18 years practicing law (but fortunately 10 years removed from it) is a very bad idea.
Brown simply has to defend the merits. Aggressively fighting someone who will not have the resources to make up for lost opportunities and NFL approvals will make him look vindictive and evil. Which may complicate the jury's conviction that he did not do the things that Taylor accused him of doing.
This is reported simply as a tactic of harassment. It compels the plaintiff to worry about an adverse sentence, pressures her to settle the peanut case, or to distance herself.
Here's the other problem with the libel case: Because damages are determined by assessing the damage to Brown's existing reputation, everything about his previous reputation becomes fair play. Which gives her lawyers a license to delve into anything and everything that would make Brown look bad.
Bottom line, this is a very bad idea. But it's not too late to fix it. Brown can instruct his lawyers to abandon the cross-case and focus solely on defense of the case.
This is probably the smartest thing he does all year. Of course, given the year he had, this is a low level.