Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Good

About jdswan922

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Chicago Bears
  1. Matt Stafford fits the bill. 2006 - 52.7% 2007 - 55.7% 2008 - 61.9% Career 57.1%
  2. Adam Schefter‏ @AdamSchefter 14m Former Jaguars’ WR Allen Robinson intends to sign with the Chicago Bears barring any last-minute snags when free agency opens Wednesday, source tells ESPN.
  3. I know he wasn't a superstar, but Steve Smith (NYG) was on his way to being a very good NFL and fantasy WR before his injury.
  4. thanks coach. Because ypc in a very limited sample set is the only determinant for assigning RB duties. Good call. That's what is really shocking to me, assuming the people on these boards are football fans, that anyone actually thinks an NFL head coach is going to look at ypc averages for two backs who have less than 50 carries on the season (and who faced different teams) and make any assessment based on that - all while throwing away what was achieved in the passing game. I'll stand by what I said earlier - if both backs played a full NFL season, with feature back carries, my guess is their ypc would end up being very close at the end of the season. But even without that, NFL coaches aren't all that hung up on ypc numbers anyway - there's just too many variables and other assignments that go into the game. If they both played a full season with that kind of volume only one of them has much of a chance of finishing the season and it's not West.If they both played a full season with that kind of volume then they both played a full season and therefore had an equal chance of finishing the season.
  5. This is pretty good news, especially the blitz pickup bit. Now all we need is Reid to get out of his own way and relinquish some play calling duties. Insert Chase Daniels. How many?
  6. It not whether anybody "thinks he should be able to" and more about what does the new agreement allow. Give the lawyers and agents a few days and they'll see if there is any opportunity to do so. (very doubtful, but w/o reading the fine print...) Based on the NFLPA announcement it simply states that players currently serving a season long ban for marijuana use will have their suspensions reduced to 10 games. This would appear to be why he cannot appeal. It appears that they are not applying the new policy to the old threshold, rather they are simply reducing the suspensions by agreement. It still leaves a lot of questions unanswered though. Are they now in stage 4 of the new agreement or are future penalties going to be assessed based on the individual's number of marijuana infractions as delineated in the policy? Technically, the only avenue I could see any dispute from Gordon's camp, based solely on what I read on the NFLPA's website, would be because part of his year long ban was based on the codeine suspension and not marijuana. Kind of a weak argument, but if they wanted to grasp at straws...
  7. Again, you don't KNOW what the agreement says, so you are assuming. Assumptions of fact do not make anything impossible.
  8. I seriously doubt this is true, but if it is, he's going to fail.As has already been noted in this thread; he went through the appeals process. I highly doubt the new policy will include a loophole that will allow for a 2nd appeal. As has also been previously noted in this thread, he has NO legal basis for a lawsuit, either. So you are saying I'm lying. Ok. So you post about something that is impossible, you know it's impossible, so you preface your post by saying "I know people are going to jump on me," provide no link/support/anything to back up your claim, then get irritated when someone does EXACTLY what you said you know they are going to do?OK. Wow are you listening to yourself? You drink a lot of red bull? Whats impossible? It's impossible to appeal. He's already done so.Furthermore, IF his suspension is reduced (hasn't been officially announced), it would have to be done as part of an agreement between the NFL and the NFLPA. Josh Gordon is a member of the NFLPA, so any agreement to have his suspension reduced would be, in effect, agreed to by Gordon. You are suggesting that Gordon will agree to have his suspension reduced to 10 games (via his membership in the NFLPA), then try to appeal the reduced suspension that he just agreed to. If he were to try to appeal that, he would be denied immediately. If he tried to take that to court, no judge would allow it in his/her court. You can't make an agreement, then try to say the terms of what you agreed to are unfair. An awful lot of people are claiming to know a lot about an agreement that has not been finalized. If the agreement simply states that all suspensions handed down in 2014 are being reviewed and the terms of a new agreement are being applied, then Gordon has not appealed any suspension under the new policy. If the agreement specifically say "Josh Gordon's suspension is reduced to 10 games" then he would have to sign off on it personally. I highly doubt it is the latter. That would probably create a lot of problems because other players would sue. Assuming the former, if the NFL refuses to allow an appeal under the new terms I would think that Gordon has a strong case to sue.
  9. Correct me if I am wrong, but if the USA Today terms end up being agreed to by the NFL, it would seem that Gordon would be in line for a fine and no games suspended or at worst, a 4 game suspension. Assuming they use the old threshold for the test and the new policy to determine the punishment.
  10. Interesting logic. Since we haven't heard "from a source" that Gordon would be out of luck, that means he probably would get off because of this proposed settlement.Yet we haven't heard "from a source" that those players currently suspended would have their suspensions lifted; it's been pure speculation, with no named sources. So, no source saying Gordon won't get off is good for Gordon, but no source saying suspension will be retroactively lifted is also good for Gordon? Lack of something isn't proof, which I said, but the 'this might not affect Gordon' thing was speculation from Breer I think, and people ran with it. I don't think a calender year technicality is enough to keep him out if they change the standard. Especially because no one expects a cry of outrage if he was cleared. Just a thought, not so much EVIDENCE that he would be cleared by an agreement. The entire "suspensions MAY retroactively be lifted" thing is speculation. There has been no source named saying this is possible, it started off with Breer reporting about the possible change in drug policy; then people said "maybe Gordon/Welker/etc will get their suspensions lifted, then Breer tweeted "I never said it will be retroactive," the the mention on TNF pre-game, then the Washington Post repeating that it "may" be retroactive.There has been no actual report or source named for the possibility of retroactive lifting of suspensions. Yet you dismiss the idea that Gordon might not get off as speculation, but accept the speculation that the policy change might lead to suspensions being lifted. It's just interesting which speculation you choose to accept as possible, and which you choose to dismiss as unlikely. DeMaurice Smith is a pretty reliable source, right?
  11. I am not sure why everyone (media and posters here) refers to the appeal as an "arbitration" presided over by an "independent arbitrator." If you read the Substance Abuse Policy it states the appeals process... "B. Conduct of Appeals Before the Commissioner. 1. Hearing. The Commissioner will designate a time and place for a hearing (either in person or by telephone), at which either he or his designee will preside. A player may be accompanied by counsel and present relevant evidence or testimony in support of his appeal. ... 7. Commissioner Determination. Within a reasonable period of time, following the hearing, the Commissioner will issue a written decision which will constitute a full, final, and complete disposition of the appeal and which will be binding on all parties." It would appear Henderson was Goodell's "designee" and that it was still ultimately Goodell's decision. I am not an expert on the policy, but I have read it a couple of times during this whole fiasco. So, anyone who thinks that a Court won't overturn the suspension because it was a heard by an independent arbitrator is wrong. That doesn't mean that there are not numerous other reasons the suspension would be affirmed, but I don't think that is one of them.
  12. This looks like a prediction to me Zero games is a possibility. Right? You didn't say might be, you said going to be...So if it isn't zero, what is it now?and btw to answer your, at this point I think it is safe to say, zero games is not one of the possible outcomes What new breaking news do you have that takes zero games off the table?