Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
NFL to rule on new drug rule Sunday. Effect on gordon, blackmon, welk (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter millini
- Start date
Buffaloes
Footballguy
IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT THE SHARK POOL Threads that are asking for advice on how you should draft or manage your team belong in The Assistant Coach forum.
jerseydevil20
Footballguy
I haven't seen it suggested that Blackmon could come back as an outcome of this process. That ought to light a fire around here.
fridayfrenzy
Footballguy
I would be very surprised if this was a retroactive ruling/agreement.
Rhythmdoctor
Footballguy
It would only be surprising if a punishment was to be handed out retroactively. If a rule is in place that says action X is no longer illegal, I would expect anyone who was currently suspended under rule X to be activated immediately.
PatsWillWin
Footballguy
Doesn't seem like anything will affect Blackmon either way.
Kool-Aid Larry
Footballguy
#freegordon
fridayfrenzy
Footballguy
I wouldn't expect that. They violated the policy as was in effect at the time. Will they go back and pay all the players who were suspended under the old policy as well? If you answer no to this, then you have your answer. Just because someone was suspended close to the date of when the policy changes does not mean they will be given special circumstances.
Kool-Aid Larry
Footballguy
SameSongNDance
Footballguy
Okay so Mike Florio is simply speculating on this correct? He's saying it is "possible" that there suspensions could be retroactively overturned if the rules are changed by Sunday. I buy that there's a non-zero chance this could happen but seriously, what are the odds here? Is it truly enough to waste WW position or FAAB $?
Last edited by a moderator:
My assumption is that it's a low probability event. However, the return on Gordon, if he plays, is high enough that the expected utility of making the add is probably higher than it is for retaining a few FAAB $s, your worst player, and so on. If I was able to make the add, I certainly would.
People who post this waste more space than the people they are responding to. It adds NOTHING of value.
Alonzo Mosely
Footballguy
When states remove capital punishment they don't continue executing the guys on death row just because they can't unexecute the poor saps who weren't so lucky.
My guess, without reading anything Florio has to say (and really, why would anyone read what he has to say?), is that the NFL is simply using Gordon and Welker as bargaining chips. In a negotiation, virtually anything can be on the table. Players want to feel like they "won" something, so you give them Welker and Gordon. It should not strike anyone as odd, nor does it mean they have to retroactively do anything for anyone else, unless the players bargain for that - but I suspect the owners would not budge on that. With Welker and Gordon - the owners would rather those players be on the field - so they do not "lose" anything by agreeing to reduce/eliminate those suspensions.
dickey moe
Fingerpicker
Not like the NFL could lose any more credibility.
Complete BS if they apply any new policy retroactively to the Gordon/Welker situations.
The NFL has a new policy on domestic violence that they came up with *after* the Ray Rice incident and suspension. They didn't turn around and retroactively apply the new policy to Rice upping his suspension to 6 games (as is the rule under the new policy). So I can't see how it would be just for them in these cases to retroactively apply new policy terms to suspensions already handed down if they didn't for Rice, which was the suspension that the NFL took the most public flak for by far and led them to re-evaluate a couple of their policies.
The NFL has a new policy on domestic violence that they came up with *after* the Ray Rice incident and suspension. They didn't turn around and retroactively apply the new policy to Rice upping his suspension to 6 games (as is the rule under the new policy). So I can't see how it would be just for them in these cases to retroactively apply new policy terms to suspensions already handed down if they didn't for Rice, which was the suspension that the NFL took the most public flak for by far and led them to re-evaluate a couple of their policies.
Raiderfan32904
Footballguy
Just grabbed Gordon off the WW. Had an open slot and figured what the heck? Rinse/recycle if nothing comes of Sunday's news.
OU#1
Footballguy
I think this makes the most logical sense of any reply so far. Ray Rice would have been immediately suspended 6 games based on the new rules if they were going to retroactively change stuff based on new rules. Since they did not do anything retroactively for Rice, then I doubt they will change anything for Gordon or Welker.
Last edited by a moderator:
heckmanm
Footballguy
As I think has been brought up numerous times in other threads, SA/PED is covered very specifically in the CBA, but personal conduct policy is not.
OU#1
Footballguy
Haven't read the other threads, especially if you are referring to the 170 page Gordon thread. Can you elaborate on this? Is my (and angman's) logic flawed?
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
Adding to Rice's Suspension would almost be a form of Double Jeopardy. You can't convict him again because the rule changed. You can over turn an "unjust conviction" if the rules change though.
Sir Psycho
Footballguy
Clarence Hill @clarencehilljr 2m
Per sources, the new drug policy is very close to getting done and Scandrick's suspension will be lifted immediately whenever it happens.
Per sources, the new drug policy is very close to getting done and Scandrick's suspension will be lifted immediately whenever it happens.
Grigs Allmoon
Footballguy
Buck Bradcanon
Footballguy
Huge FF implications. Getting gifted Gordon with #1 waiver slot would be crazy.
I Am the Stig
Footballguy
I grabbed him for free in three leagues. Didn't cost a waiver claim at all. Worth the risk and if it doesn't pan out, it would not be the first FA pick up that contributed nothing.
Alonzo Mosely
Footballguy
Don't own him in any leagues, don't care about the fantasy football implications.
Just think the whole process has been a joke. He knew the rules and possible penalties under the agreed upon policy at the time between the NFLPA and NFL, still smoked weed despite that, but now we're going to change the rules so his stupidity goes unpunished. Great example to set for the rest of the league going forward - "These are the rules, you know the rules, but if you violate them, don't worry, complain about it enough and we'll change the rules just for you". Horrible precident to set IMHO. There's a difference between changing the policy and applying it going forward (which I'm fine with as the substance abuse policy did need to be tweaked) and going back in time to apply rules that were not in existance at that time when the action took place. Others will disagree and that's fine. But like I said, this whole process has been clown shoes.
T J
Footballguy
Don't own him in any leagues, don't care about the fantasy football implications.
Just think the whole process has been a joke. He knew the rules and possible penalties under the agreed upon policy at the time between the NFLPA and NFL, still smoked weed despite that, but now we're going to change the rules so his stupidity goes unpunished. Great example to set for the rest of the league going forward - "These are the rules, you know the rules, but if you violate them, don't worry, complain about it enough and we'll change the rules just for you". Horrible precident to set IMHO. There's a difference between changing the policy and applying it going forward (which I'm fine with as the substance abuse policy did need to be tweaked) and going back in time to apply rules that were not in existance at that time when the action took place. Others will disagree and that's fine. But like I said, this whole process has been clown shoes.
you seem to have a lot of pent up frustrationThe league is going to change the rules, its only a matter of time. So, yes, he broke the rules, and deserves to be punished. On that we can all agree. But, when you consider that nobody involved - the league or the players - really wants to punish him, its pretty reasonable to see a scenario where the punishment is lifted when the rules are modified to the point where his conduct is no longer considered a violation of league policy.
Right now, most reasonable people would say that the rules that are in place for pot usage/testing, are not in line with the current climate for drug testing, or drug usage in the US or sports anti-drug rules. With that as the background - unless you have a personal stake in the matter, I don't understand why you, or anyone, would care, if the NFL and Players negotiate a new policy that applies retroactively. It seemingly should have no effect on your life, how the NFL and its players decide to conduct business.
cstu
Footballguy
OU#1
Footballguy
So do you drop a guy like Hunter or Latimer for this lottery ticket? Yeah I know-that's kind of an ACF Q-so in general where do you draw the line? We all know that if he plays he's a top 10 lock, but you can't drop solid WR2/3's on a pipe dream, but WR4/5's it's worth a shot I assume? I guess this is the million dollar question.
Last edited by a moderator:
Cliff Clavin
Footballguy
I dropped Welker for him. Too much upside not to grab him. I absolutely drop Lattimer or Hunter for him.
Did you really post this? You're suggesting if a rule is in place, and many people disagree with it, the rulemakers shouldn't meet to update the rules. News flash, this is how the world works. Take a look man.
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
heckmanm
Footballguy
I'm not an expert by any means, but as I understand it, the CBA outlines very specific thresholds and punishments for substance abuse and PEDs (e.g., no punishment or disclosure for first offense), and any changes to either must also be collectively bargained. A part of that bargaining could include agreement on both sides to have the changes applied retroactively.
The "Personal Conduct" policy, OTOH, is not spelled out in that kind of detail. Basically, the commissioner's office has fairly broad discretion on how to punish violations, and can alter them without consulting the players union, as they did recently for domestic violence.
Its week 1 - you drop your worst WR on your roster right now - who obviously is not starting for you anyway. If it does not pan out, you pick up a bench WR next week.
Spike
Footballguy
OU#1
Footballguy
OU#1
Footballguy
Every year there is a waiver wire wonder who is a WR1/RB1/TE1/etc. Sometimes you draft these guys late in rounds. I guess I'm overly paranoid that I might be dropping one of those waiver wire wonders.
kutta
Footballguy
My guess is that because Gordon was so close to the limit, when they bump the limit, Gordon would pass. My guess is that Blackmon still wouldn't pass.
But I really know nothing.
everydayj
Footballguy
And sometimes, an amazing lottery ticket that's prize is a proven WR1 is offered. Sure, there's risk involved but you KNOW what you're getting if Gordon plays. I'll take that risk over hoping that guys like Latimer ends up as end-of-draft gold.
kutta
Footballguy
Grabbing Gordon is as close to a free roll as we get in this hobby. We all have someone we can drop at this point, especially if the chance is we get a guy who was a sure-fire 2nd round draft pick. We don't get the chance to get a huge difference maker at a next-to-nothing price very often. I don't care how slim the chances are, it's worth dropping my 13th round draft pick for the shot.
