Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Matt Waldman

Josh Gordon Everything Thread

Recommended Posts

Josh Gordon dynasty value now?

A 2015 1st?

On FBG and a couple of other dynasty rankings, I see him ranked around rookie WR3 or WR4. So that could be turned into around a mid-round first pick IMO.

Thoughts from anyone who rather talk value than legal mumbo jumbo? ;)

I think there is the potential for a disconnect between his trade value and where most sites are going to rank him. What I mean is that I think it is probably going to be easier to get a 1st (or whatever the appropriate price is for that range) because he is more volatile. That increased volatility is going to allow people to more easily create the narrative where he could significantly help their team.

Mid-1st sounds about right, would probably move a late 1st for him and would not give a projected early 1st.

A mid-1st would've been too much before the atbitror ruling was announced IMO. Now I really think you'd have to be deluaional about what this guy prioritizes in life.

Obviously the kid is an idiot, but I don't think we can assume that the NFL's drug policy is going to stay static forever. It is possible that the NFLPA gives in on HGH testing and the thresholds for THC come up dramatically or pot suspensions get reduced dramatically.

Dude got popped for marijuana possession once at Baylor and the recent DUI where he was barely over the limit. Were there other run-ins with the law that weren't speeding? Idiot? Sure. Blackmon level? Not even close.

If you think fair market price is significantly south of a mid-1st I can definitely respect that, but it just takes 1 buyer willing to take the chance. And I might be suffering from some benchmark bias based on what OP threw out initially. But let's put it this way, I would jump at acquiring him for a 2nd in virtually any league setting,

If he had no drug/suspension history at all, what is his price? 3-4 random 1sts? so the 1 mid-1st already incorporates a significant discount over what his talent level is.

I understand all of the signs are pointing down right now, and there is a possibility that he never suits up in NFL again. But I am not willing to say that that is definitely the case or that I have a high degree of confidence in that statement.

Hey everyone has their own risk appetite so that's fine. I think if you are fully conscious of how many times he has screwed up and how easy it will be for him to do so again and get caught since he's now in the program for the rest of his career, and you would still give a 1st, more power to you.

The people that I think are crazy are the ones wh are like "Well when he gets back, he's still going to just be 24 years old. He'll be a stud for years!" I've seen it, I literally saw as remark like that when the guy bought Gordon for a future 1st a few weeks ago. That guy and others who would say the same are ignoring the fact that it's not a "when," and that there's nothing to suggest he's going to have a long career.

But yeah if you go in eyes wide open and would still give a 1st, god bless. I get it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look at the sacrifices that a professional NFL player has to make as a result of the current CBA--it's absolutely shocking. Just look at the draft process---outside the world of sports--it would be 100% unconstitutional. Could you imagine if med students couldn't dictate the course of where they wanted to be employed after graduation? Instead, they would have to sit around while hospitals draft them one by one--and once drafted by a hospital--they had no way of using the free market to negotiate their value.

Not unconstitutional, but it would violate the Sherman Act.
yes--you are right when it comes to it not specifically being mentioned in the constitution--but the founders of the constitution were very much into free markets and freedom of employment--the article in the link below is a very interesting read

http://www.nccs.net/freedom-of-individual-enterprise.php

Most were also a fan of free employment, aka slavery lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's his trade value now? Guy in my league paid in the offseason Harvin, J. Thomas (DEN) and DMAC which looking back isn't bad. I threw out there Matthews and a 1st 2015 and thought that was more than fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just spitballing here, but if a state passed a law that professional athletes could not be tested for illegal substances, would the NFL be screwed for any teams in that state? Suddenly, say the Vikings, all of a sudden have a bunch of roided up potheads playing for them and the NfL could do nothing about it?

1. The league would sue the state and win.

On what basis?

On the Basis that the NFL is a Private employer and can set what ever standards they wish for their employees. States cannot demand an employer to prohibit the use of a substance.

So ... no law in support of your claim? Dismissed

Maybe you should check the Denver statutes. Employers can and are firing employees for off the job use of marijuana. Employees have pressed the issue and the EMPLOYER wins every time... DISMISSED
Does Colorado have a law prohibiting employers from doing that? I strongly suspect it does not. The question is what would happen if it did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still won.

because I find you so fascinating I would love to hear how you won

I got to meet all of you, and made friends with a portion as well.

it was a fun ride to say the least

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one thing the NFL needs to change is not letting the players be around the team while they are suspended. They make a bad situation worse, these troubled guys need to be around the team for a support system.

They screw up suspend them, that's fine, but don't take them completely away from the one thing that could keep them on the right track.

What's a guy who likes the tree, has a bank account and has a year to kill going to do with himself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes--you are right when it comes to it not specifically being mentioned in the constitution--but the founders of the constitution were very much into free markets and freedom of employment.

Even the ones that owned slaves?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just spitballing here, but if a state passed a law that professional athletes could not be tested for illegal substances, would the NFL be screwed for any teams in that state? Suddenly, say the Vikings, all of a sudden have a bunch of roided up potheads playing for them and the NfL could do nothing about it?

1. The league would sue the state and win.

On what basis?

On the Basis that the NFL is a Private employer and can set what ever standards they wish for their employees. States cannot demand an employer to prohibit the use of a substance.

So ... no law in support of your claim? Dismissed

Maybe you should check the Denver statutes. Employers can and are firing employees for off the job use of marijuana. Employees have pressed the issue and the EMPLOYER wins every time... DISMISSED
Does Colorado have a law prohibiting employers from doing that? I strongly suspect it does not. The question is what would happen if it did.
No it does not. Our company still drug tests and marijuana is on the prohibited list. You test positive for marijuana, you lose your job. Same thing with my daughter working at the hospital. She's younger than Gordon and she gets it. And she doesn't earn $10M per year to put at risk.

And if you want company sponsored treatment, you have to seek it out before you test. Once you test positive you're done.

.

Edited by Bronco Billy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when is the lawsuit happening

Today or never. More likely, never.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just spitballing here, but if a state passed a law that professional athletes could not be tested for illegal substances, would the NFL be screwed for any teams in that state? Suddenly, say the Vikings, all of a sudden have a bunch of roided up potheads playing for them and the NfL could do nothing about it?

1. The league would sue the state and win.

On what basis?

On the Basis that the NFL is a Private employer and can set what ever standards they wish for their employees. States cannot demand an employer to prohibit the use of a substance.

So ... no law in support of your claim? Dismissed

Maybe you should check the Denver statutes. Employers can and are firing employees for off the job use of marijuana. Employees have pressed the issue and the EMPLOYER wins every time... DISMISSED
Does Colorado have a law prohibiting employers from doing that? I strongly suspect it does not. The question is what would happen if it did.
No it does not. Our company still drug tests and marijuana is on the prohibited list. You test positive for marijuana, you lose your job. Same thing with my daughter working at the hospital. She's younger than Gordon and she gets it. And she doesn't earn $10M per year to put at risk.

And if you want company sponsored treatment, you have to seek it out before you test. Once you test positive you're done.

Yeah, I know he was just talking a hypothetical, but just because a state has decriminalized marijuana doesn't mean they're going to make it illegal for employers to not want employees who do it. Will never happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I know he was just talking a hypothetical, but just because a state has decriminalized marijuana doesn't mean they're going to make it illegal for employers to not want employees who do it. Will never happen.

Agree on all points. The only debatable question is whether a state could enforce such a law if it existed. I suspect it could, but it's not obvious.

This is tangential, but not irrelevant to Gordon, as some have speculated that state law may offer Gordon protections that the league did not afford him. I'm pretty sure that's a misreading of Ohio law, but I can't say I've done enough research to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I know he was just talking a hypothetical, but just because a state has decriminalized marijuana doesn't mean they're going to make it illegal for employers to not want employees who do it. Will never happen.

Agree on all points. The only debatable question is whether a state could enforce such a law if it existed. I suspect it could, but it's not obvious.

This is tangential, but not irrelevant to Gordon, as some have speculated that state law may offer Gordon protections that the league did not afford him. I'm pretty sure that's a misreading of Ohio law, but I can't say I've done enough research to know.

There was an article written on some random guy's website about the Ohio Drug Free Workplace program. He, and a few posters here, mistook that as a mandatory state law program. It isn't. I've yet to see anything about conflicts with Ohio state law, and frankly can't imagine that being an issue because the whole point of a CBA would be moot if it was subject to the laws of every state with an NFL team.

I don't think there will be any lawsuit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cleveland Plain Dealer = WINNING

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Browns All-Pro receiver Josh Gordon -- suspended Thursday for at least the entire 2014 season for violating the NFL's substance abuse policy -- will now embark on the longest go-route of his life, and will begin working hard on his comeback route.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was an article written on some random guy's website about the Ohio Drug Free Workplace program. He, and a few posters here, mistook that as a mandatory state law program. It isn't. I've yet to see anything about conflicts with Ohio state law, and frankly can't imagine that being an issue because the whole point of a CBA would be moot if it was subject to the laws of every state with an NFL team.

I could be way off on this, but I thought that in the Starcaps case, the judges actually ruled that the NFL was subjected to state laws on drug testing, however they dismissed it in that case because the drug in question was not covered under Minnesota's drug testing laws.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/120923184.html

The Appeals Court declined to block the NFL suspensions because the diuretic the players tested positive for does not fall under the state's workplace drug-testing laws. But the three-judge panel also noted that the NFL is subject to state law when testing players for other drugs that are covered, such as anabolic steroids.

Of course there is stuff in the link that MT posted that seems to contradict that ruling.

The court reasoned that federal labor law (specifically, §301 of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"), 29 U.S.C. § 185(a)) did not permit unions and employers to agree on terms that violate state law. This misses the point. Under several precedents (see appendix for details), whenever a sports league rule needs to be uniform, application of state law would require the league to adopt the most restrict state law, which constitutes an undue burden on interstate commerce. Clearly, there can’t be one steroid policy for Vikings players and another policy for the Green Bay Packers if Wisconsin law differs.

I can't see any scenario where Gordon could actually win a court case, it would really be about whether he had enough of a case to get a TRO and play in 2014, but I think at some point he's going to serve the full 16 game suspension.

Edited by NJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when is the lawsuit happening

Suing the people who are in charge of your reinstatement? Not a good idea, but if Gordon is anything, its dumb... so expecting an idiotic lawsuit is not far fetched.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when is the lawsuit happening

Suing the people who are in charge of your reinstatement? Not a good idea, but if Gordon is anything, its dumb... so expecting an idiotic lawsuit is not far fetched.

Serious question though, and maybe I'm off base, but why would that affect the decision on the reinstatement? If Goodell is impartial, shouldn't the reinstatement depend solely on Gordon's behavior w.r.t. drugs and alcohol during the suspension. If he sues the NFL because he believes their decision was wrong, to me that's irrelevant to the decision to reinstate. Now... if he sues just to cause a stir or because he's salty that he's out for the year, I can see that relating to his behavior and thus affecting the reinstatement. In this instance, I feel like the case is the former.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my rant.

Josh Gordon is ultimately responsible for what has occurred. As ludicrous as the NFL policy--and federal and the majority of state laws-- are regarding marijuana use, he knew the rules and put himself in position to be in violation of them. And for that you can call him stupid, a moron, an addict or whatever other term makes you feel better about yourself.

If I were to call him anything it would be immature as that is really what it is. Not fully realizing or accepting the consequences of his actions. But let's remember that he is 23 YEARS old. I know I too was immature at 23--almost all of us were in one way or another-- and did A LOT of stupid things, including some that were illegal. I would have failed at least 95% of the marijuana tests issued to me at that time--and in fact failed a pre-employment test at a job that I was still hired at, worked at, and where I happened to meet my future wife. And guess what. I'm now a married 36 year old father with a graduate degree, a "career", own a home, and act as a generally productive member of society. I also know of many successful people--educators, lawyers, business owners, executives--who have, or currently use marijuana and/or other illegal recreational drugs, including ILLEGAL use and abuse of prescription drugs--which by the way the NFL has essentially supported. And guess what whether you KNOW it or not you personally KNOW people like that too.

I see people posting things suggesting that Gordon is some sort of plague on society. Let's look at what he's really done. A DUI that is a serious offensive and should be dealt with by the laws of the state of North Carolina.... and he seems to really like weed. So much so that he failed a reported ONE OF 70 tests in the last year---btw at a level that is not even recognized by the most vigilant drug policy enforcement forces in the world. Ok.

At the same time, he's also managed to be, by both some objective and subjective measures, the best in the world at his job.

So let's look at the cost/benefit of his action and the results. In and of itself Gordon smoking weed in his free time has pretty much ZERO negative impact on himself, his team, the league or society. Yet the negative impact of suspending him for his violation of an illogical policy has clear negative affect on him, his team, the league, and society. Yes society because Gordon won't be paying taxes on his salary. In fact, marijuana prohibition in general costs taxpayers an estimated $20 billion a year through enforcement expenses and the loss of tax revenue. And It costs the Browns their best player, the NFL one of the best young players in the league, it costs opposing players the opportunity to match their skills against one of the best, fans the chance to see the highest level of competition, and FF Players ANOTHER WR1 IN DRAFTS and on their rosters this year. And for what? Because he smokes weed--a recreational decision, which is measurably less harmful than tobacco, alcohol, and many of the prescription drugs that NFL heavily supports through team doctors and money making deals. Take an honest look at what's going on here. There are ZERO facts that support marijuana prohibition being good for society. I'll take that argument any day.

Gordon is guilty of being immature and making a selfish decision to be anywhere in the vicinity of something that positioned him for a positive test, no matter how majorly insignificant the levels suggests that vicinity may have been. But again he's 23 years old. The vast majority of us made bad decisions at that time in our lives that didn't costs us so dearly because we weren't in such punitive environments. And because of a draconian and ill advised policy one bad decision is costing this 23 year old, and countless others, immensely. It serves no one.

Stop with the talk of what would happen to "most people." Most, as in the VAST majority of people, DONT GET drug tested at all in their current jobs, let alone randomly. Some employers do pre-employment testing and I know for a fact that people fail those and still get hired. I was one of them. If employers want to test job applicants before hiring then that's their right no matter how pointless it is for many of them. And it makes sense for people in jobs involving public safety and incident based policies.

But the NFL's policy serves no one--other than the pharmaceutical companies the NFL is in bed with-- and it's evident. A high percentage of players still smoke weed anyway. Chris Cooley recently said it would be easier to find a group of guys to go smoke with then a group to go have beers with. There is undeniable medical research that proves marijuana is a more effective for certain individuals as a MEDICAL option for treatment of certain conditions. That's why half of the country has legalized medical marijuana. And in fact, many of the conditions that marijuana benefits are conditions that many NFL players suffer from.

Again, Josh Gordon is guilty of some bad decisions and being an immature 23 year old but the NFL, and society as a whole, are much more guilty of falling for 80 years of propaganda from a small number of special interests groups who benefit from marijuana prohibition.

It's illogical, counterproductive, shameful, and insane. And this situation presents an opportunity for people to say so and ask that bad policy be changed. I'm going to take advantage of that opportunity for a while in whatever forums I can right now.

So what round did you burn a pick on him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my rant.

Josh Gordon is ultimately responsible for what has occurred. As ludicrous as the NFL policy--and federal and the majority of state laws-- are regarding marijuana use, he knew the rules and put himself in position to be in violation of them. And for that you can call him stupid, a moron, an addict or whatever other term makes you feel better about yourself.

If I were to call him anything it would be immature as that is really what it is. Not fully realizing or accepting the consequences of his actions. But let's remember that he is 23 YEARS old. I know I too was immature at 23--almost all of us were in one way or another-- and did A LOT of stupid things, including some that were illegal. I would have failed at least 95% of the marijuana tests issued to me at that time--and in fact failed a pre-employment test at a job that I was still hired at, worked at, and where I happened to meet my future wife. And guess what. I'm now a married 36 year old father with a graduate degree, a "career", own a home, and act as a generally productive member of society. I also know of many successful people--educators, lawyers, business owners, executives--who have, or currently use marijuana and/or other illegal recreational drugs, including ILLEGAL use and abuse of prescription drugs--which by the way the NFL has essentially supported. And guess what whether you KNOW it or not you personally KNOW people like that too.

I see people posting things suggesting that Gordon is some sort of plague on society. Let's look at what he's really done. A DUI that is a serious offensive and should be dealt with by the laws of the state of North Carolina.... and he seems to really like weed. So much so that he failed a reported ONE OF 70 tests in the last year---btw at a level that is not even recognized by the most vigilant drug policy enforcement forces in the world. Ok.

At the same time, he's also managed to be, by both some objective and subjective measures, the best in the world at his job.

So let's look at the cost/benefit of his action and the results. In and of itself Gordon smoking weed in his free time has pretty much ZERO negative impact on himself, his team, the league or society. Yet the negative impact of suspending him for his violation of an illogical policy has clear negative affect on him, his team, the league, and society. Yes society because Gordon won't be paying taxes on his salary. In fact, marijuana prohibition in general costs taxpayers an estimated $20 billion a year through enforcement expenses and the loss of tax revenue. And It costs the Browns their best player, the NFL one of the best young players in the league, it costs opposing players the opportunity to match their skills against one of the best, fans the chance to see the highest level of competition, and FF Players ANOTHER WR1 IN DRAFTS and on their rosters this year. And for what? Because he smokes weed--a recreational decision, which is measurably less harmful than tobacco, alcohol, and many of the prescription drugs that NFL heavily supports through team doctors and money making deals. Take an honest look at what's going on here. There are ZERO facts that support marijuana prohibition being good for society. I'll take that argument any day.

Gordon is guilty of being immature and making a selfish decision to be anywhere in the vicinity of something that positioned him for a positive test, no matter how majorly insignificant the levels suggests that vicinity may have been. But again he's 23 years old. The vast majority of us made bad decisions at that time in our lives that didn't costs us so dearly because we weren't in such punitive environments. And because of a draconian and ill advised policy one bad decision is costing this 23 year old, and countless others, immensely. It serves no one.

Stop with the talk of what would happen to "most people." Most, as in the VAST majority of people, DONT GET drug tested at all in their current jobs, let alone randomly. Some employers do pre-employment testing and I know for a fact that people fail those and still get hired. I was one of them. If employers want to test job applicants before hiring then that's their right no matter how pointless it is for many of them. And it makes sense for people in jobs involving public safety and incident based policies.

But the NFL's policy serves no one--other than the pharmaceutical companies the NFL is in bed with-- and it's evident. A high percentage of players still smoke weed anyway. Chris Cooley recently said it would be easier to find a group of guys to go smoke with then a group to go have beers with. There is undeniable medical research that proves marijuana is a more effective for certain individuals as a MEDICAL option for treatment of certain conditions. That's why half of the country has legalized medical marijuana. And in fact, many of the conditions that marijuana benefits are conditions that many NFL players suffer from.

Again, Josh Gordon is guilty of some bad decisions and being an immature 23 year old but the NFL, and society as a whole, are much more guilty of falling for 80 years of propaganda from a small number of special interests groups who benefit from marijuana prohibition.

It's illogical, counterproductive, shameful, and insane. And this situation presents an opportunity for people to say so and ask that bad policy be changed. I'm going to take advantage of that opportunity for a while in whatever forums I can right now.

Actually I agreed with a lot of what you say and favor legalization.

Some points i don't agree with;

I think Cooley is full of dung. Pot use may be high, but guys get together for beer much more often than beers.

I also think you under estimate the number of people subject to drug testing in our society. It's pretty much standard in manufacturing that if you have any type of injury you're getting tested for drugs and alcohol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You cant bring me down, Dan

Im in my thread w all my buddies. Discussing this potential court proceeding

Craziness all around

you are really starting to grow on me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be such a sensible thing to do. Get into a structured football environment away from everyone he knows. Go to Alberta or Calgary or Edmonton.

Edited by wdcrob
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LaVon Brazill just signed with the Argos so it wouldn't surprise me.

If he signed with the Argos I might actually go to some of my hometown CFL games..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the weed is better in Canada.. im sure he really wants to goto cfl to play

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suspended WR Josh Gordon has made a request to the #Browns to allow him to play in the CFL during his suspension, source says. However…




Texting with a CFL GM who tells me if Josh Gordon is under contract & suspended, rules don’t allow him to play in CFL. Only if he’s cut.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be such a sensible thing to do. Get into a structured football environment away from everyone he knows. Go to Alberta or Calgary or Edmonton.

Yes. Canadians are renowned for their resistance to the use of mind altering substances. That ought to suit Gordon well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

either way the browns would be ludicrous to allow this

he is their asset and costs them nothing. to allow him to further endanger the value of that assert in the CFL would be silly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all he and the browns need is some french cnadian DB blowing his knees up and ending this story once and for all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

either way the browns would be ludicrous to allow this

he is their asset and costs them nothing. to allow him to further endanger the value of that assert in the CFL would be silly

IMO Odds Gordon fails another test hanging around with his boys without any structure >>>> Odds he gets hurt

Might be smart to let him go.

But apparently CFL has rules against anyhow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

either way the browns would be ludicrous to allow this

he is their asset and costs them nothing. to allow him to further endanger the value of that assert in the CFL would be silly

IMO Odds Gordon fails another test hanging around with his boys without any structure >>>> Odds he gets hurt

Might be smart to let him go.

But apparently CFL has rules against anyhow.

who says they have any structure up in the CFL that will help?

this was a quick search on CFL drug policy:

The policy is targeted: It covers performance enhancing drugs - recreational drugs are excluded. A complete list of substances banned under the policy is attached.

So they have nothing in place to help him stay clean because they do not care if he smokes every day.

up there he has the chance of injury and of failing more tests

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

either way the browns would be ludicrous to allow this

he is their asset and costs them nothing. to allow him to further endanger the value of that assert in the CFL would be silly

IMO Odds Gordon fails another test hanging around with his boys without any structure >>>> Odds he gets hurt

Might be smart to let him go.

But apparently CFL has rules against anyhow.

who says they have any structure up in the CFL that will help?

this was a quick search on CFL drug policy:

The policy is targeted: It covers performance enhancing drugs - recreational drugs are excluded. A complete list of substances banned under the policy is attached.

So they have nothing in place to help him stay clean because they do not care if he smokes every day.

up there he has the chance of injury and of failing more tests

He remains subject to as many as 10 tests/month while suspended.

So the structure is just being in a football environment where you practice/meet every day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all he and the browns need is some french cnadian DB blowing his knees up and ending this story once and for all

Mythical beast.

and at Cornerback for the Montreal Alouettes ....#23 Caillou!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

either way the browns would be ludicrous to allow this

he is their asset and costs them nothing. to allow him to further endanger the value of that assert in the CFL would be silly

IMO Odds Gordon fails another test hanging around with his boys without any structure >>>> Odds he gets hurt

Might be smart to let him go.

But apparently CFL has rules against anyhow.

who says they have any structure up in the CFL that will help?

this was a quick search on CFL drug policy:

The policy is targeted: It covers performance enhancing drugs - recreational drugs are excluded. A complete list of substances banned under the policy is attached.

So they have nothing in place to help him stay clean because they do not care if he smokes every day.

up there he has the chance of injury and of failing more tests

He remains subject to as many as 10 tests/month while suspended.

So the structure is just being in a football environment where you practice/meet every day.

he's been in that since he was in high school

he has failed 6 tests since 2010

6

oh and gotten a dui

the structure is not doing it, AND he could get hurt

the browns would be the most ridiculous franchise ever if they let this player go play in the norther JV league

it would also be another message to him that he can break the rules because he is Josh Gordon, dammit, and rules do not apply

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be such a sensible thing to do. Get into a structured football environment away from everyone he knows. Go to Alberta or Calgary or Edmonton.

Road games in BC might not be the best idea...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the odds are against him playing another NFL snap, just a feeling I have. I hope it's really good weed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for the record the CFL says he cannot play there as do the browns, so it's a desperate attempt by him doomed to fail. Which is what he has been doing since may. his advisers should be telling him face the facts and stay clear of weed or quit the nfl, not stringing him along with false hop after false hope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

either way the browns would be ludicrous to allow this

he is their asset and costs them nothing. to allow him to further endanger the value of that assert in the CFL would be silly

IMO Odds Gordon fails another test hanging around with his boys without any structure >>>> Odds he gets hurt

Might be smart to let him go.

But apparently CFL has rules against anyhow.

who says they have any structure up in the CFL that will help?

this was a quick search on CFL drug policy:

The policy is targeted: It covers performance enhancing drugs - recreational drugs are excluded. A complete list of substances banned under the policy is attached.

So they have nothing in place to help him stay clean because they do not care if he smokes every day.

up there he has the chance of injury and of failing more tests

He remains subject to as many as 10 tests/month while suspended.

So the structure is just being in a football environment where you practice/meet every day.

he's been in that since he was in high school

he has failed 6 tests since 2010

6

oh and gotten a dui

the structure is not doing it, AND he could get hurt

the browns would be the most ridiculous franchise ever if they let this player go play in the norther JV league

it would also be another message to him that he can break the rules because he is Josh Gordon, dammit, and rules do not apply

:goodposting: My mind is changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all he and the browns need is some french cnadian DB blowing his knees up and ending this story once and for all

Mythical beast.

and at Cornerback for the Montreal Alouettes ....#23 Caillou!

Has to be a name change from something like Smith or Washington for marketing purposes north of the border. Don't be so gullible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

either way the browns would be ludicrous to allow this

he is their asset and costs them nothing. to allow him to further endanger the value of that assert in the CFL would be silly

I hope they're looking out for him as more than an asset. I doubt it, and you're likely right--it won't happen. But I'd like to see it, for his sake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any more dynasty value opinions out there?

Would you offer a 2015 1st for him? (Or accept a 2015 1st for him. Whichever)

Edited by joey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

either way the browns would be ludicrous to allow this

he is their asset and costs them nothing. to allow him to further endanger the value of that assert in the CFL would be silly

I hope they're looking out for him as more than an asset. I doubt it, and you're likely right--it won't happen. But I'd like to see it, for his sake.

it would be nice if they were, but that's not typical in the nfl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His advisers should know that he cannot play in CFL. Sounds like legal ploy. Please grant this TRO the NFL has restricted my ability to earn a living in two countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His advisers should know that he cannot play in CFL. Sounds like legal ploy. Please grant this TRO the NFL has restricted my ability to earn a living in two countries.

But didnt he prevent himself from not making an income in two countries by getting suspended multiple time in the NFL?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His advisers should know that he cannot play in CFL. Sounds like legal ploy. Please grant this TRO the NFL has restricted my ability to earn a living in two countries.

But didnt he prevent himself from not making an income in two countries by getting suspended multiple time in the NFL?

Of course he did, I did not say that it had merit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His advisers should know that he cannot play in CFL. Sounds like legal ploy. Please grant this TRO the NFL has restricted my ability to earn a living in two countries.

But didnt he prevent himself from not making an income in two countries by getting suspended multiple time in the NFL?

Of course he did, I did not say that it had merit.

and

the nfl is not preventing him from playing there, the browns are, and the CFL is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.