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.
WR Josh Gordon, KC (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Matt Waldman
- Start date
Jerry Curl
Footballguy
Adam Harstad
Moderator
Assuming it doesn't get pushed back again. That's what happened with Lynch, and then it got pushed back a couple more times. IIRC, he got arrested for drunk driving in the offseason before 2012 and the case didn't resolve until the offseason before 2014.
ISUDESTROYERS
Footballguy
So is there ANY CHANCE he can get this delayed and play this year. Need to know as I'm in the process of dropping him for a defense if he doesn't. Just hoping there is an inkling of hope he can play.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
GoodLloydHaveMercy
Footballguy
Their responses are kinda douchey no? Even if they didn't find it funny it's not like you were personally attacking their mom right? I mean who cares if they still live in their momma's basement and have nothing better to do than put down their Hot Pocket temporarily to "burn" another poster trying to be funny...Dude, I know you're just trying to be funny, but please know that you're not, and this is just really, really dumb.BoltNlava said:Yes! My mole who works in baggage said he had personally checked in 3 large bags for Josh Gordon. That's the good news.Bucky86 said:Any word if Gordon is traveling with the team?
The bad news: Every dog in smelling distance in the terminal was hitting on said baggage.
All dogs are said to have "the munchies" and are unapproachable at this time.ok thanks...carry onThis is the dumbest thing I've read all day. Don't quit your day job because comedy isn't your thing.BoltNlava said:Yes! My mole who works in baggage said he had personally checked in 3 large bags for Josh Gordon. That's the good news.Bucky86 said:
The bad news: Every dog in smelling distance in the terminal was hitting on said baggage.
All dogs are said to have "the munchies" and are unapproachable at this time.
I'm sure when they crash after their pop rocks and gushers dessert they'll pump their chest again about being right all along and saying Gordon would play all 16...
Even if that's how they saw it playing out I'm sure they didn't call it for playing out in THIS particular process
Neofight
Footballguy
Indeed, it looks like Welker was the last straw.Still can't get my head around how this works out, but stranger things have happened. There has got to be additional unknown elements to this negotiation that makes it sweeter for both sides. The NFL is certainly not short on melodrama.Adam Harstad said:
GregR
Footballguy
No, it's not "all of a sudden". It's after 3 years of negotiating. 3 years of advances and setbacks and halts and resumptions that have resulted in them finally being close now. Advances that included a major one early in August when the NFLPA agreed to an independent population study to determine whether the average amount of HGH in human bodies is consistent (as WADA maintains) or whether NFL players may have amounts that differ from the rest of the human population.
It shouldn't be surprising that a deadline that increases the pain for one or both sides in the negotiation can help bridge the remaining gap though. That happens a lot in negotiations as people hold out as long as they can trying to get concessions.
But wording it like they made no progress for 3 years and then suddenly are almost at a deal is not an accurate depiction of the situation.
cstu
Footballguy
I would emphatically disagree.What do you know?
Why wait another year to implement testing that was agreed to years ago? My guess is the players want to smoke pot more than they want to use HGH...
Last edited by a moderator:
Delayed? No chance.
Overturned, small chance - my guess is that will be one of the breaking stories Sunday morning - one way or the other. Gordon won't play Sunday though, if you are holding out for that. He can get you a good deal on a late-model used car though.
KellysHeroes
Footballguy
The NFL knows how to be a drama queen
massraider
Footballguy
Regarding the idea that this wouldn't apply to Gordon:
1. We haven't heard from a source that he would be out of luck. If this didn't apply to him, I would think some source would have leaked that. That's not proof, just that I take it as a good sign.
2. More importantly, if the NFL and NFLPA agree to this, I think Gordon would be part of the settlement. I think these talks show the NFL cares about HGH, not pot. I just cannot imagine an agreement, and Gordon getting left out because of a technicality. The NFLPA will fight for him, and I doubt the NFL cares about making an example of Gordon.
Gotta say, I never thought he'd beat the rap, but with these negotiations, I am now pretty sure he's playing.
1. We haven't heard from a source that he would be out of luck. If this didn't apply to him, I would think some source would have leaked that. That's not proof, just that I take it as a good sign.
2. More importantly, if the NFL and NFLPA agree to this, I think Gordon would be part of the settlement. I think these talks show the NFL cares about HGH, not pot. I just cannot imagine an agreement, and Gordon getting left out because of a technicality. The NFLPA will fight for him, and I doubt the NFL cares about making an example of Gordon.
Gotta say, I never thought he'd beat the rap, but with these negotiations, I am now pretty sure he's playing.
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?
He didn't appeal then. He accepted a reduction to two games in lieu of appealing.NJ said:
massraider
Footballguy
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.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?
I'd rather be on the $500 side of that bet than the $49,500 side, but that's in part because I'm risk-averse. The $49,500 side might have the better EV. Based on my own best guess, I think it's pretty close.
But I wouldn't take either side of that bet in reality, because I have no inside information, and anyone willing to bet against me might have some.
Last edited by a moderator:
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.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.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?
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.
I think there's been a lot of sloppy reporting on this matter from the beginning.
I wouldn't put much credence into anything being said in the media about it even now. Even people you'd expect to be able to trust on this kind of matter have said some surprisingly incorrect things.
I wouldn't put much credence into anything being said in the media about it even now. Even people you'd expect to be able to trust on this kind of matter have said some surprisingly incorrect things.
DeMaurice Smith is a pretty reliable source, right?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.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.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?
It's just interesting which speculation you choose to accept as possible, and which you choose to dismiss as unlikely.
http://m.espn.go.com/nfl/story?storyId=11471429
DeMaurice Smith is using the media to help him in his negotiations. In that context, I don't think "reliable" is exactly the right word. But "noteworthy" would fit. It's something to take into account.
Also, I think it's important to point out that while the alleged infractions occurred during the 2013 league year, the actual suspensions did not. Gordon was suspended in May, and Welker was suspended in September, right? The league year begins in March. So if the new drug policy is retroactive to the beginning of the league year, it might make sense to use the policy in force at the time of their suspensions (which would be the new policy, retroactively), rather than at the time of their alleged infractions (which would be the old policy).
(That's a big if, though, IMO.)
Yes, but this was his actual quote:DeMaurice Smith is a pretty reliable source, right?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.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.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?
It's just interesting which speculation you choose to accept as possible, and which you choose to dismiss as unlikely.
http://m.espn.go.com/nfl/story?storyId=11471429
"If we get a deal done that covers players in this league year, I don't like that we punish players under a deal active in the old league year."
Gordon wasn't suspended for something that happened in this league year; his failed test occurred during the 2013 league year (January of 2014 is part of the 2013 league year). So Smith's quote doesn't really apply to Gordon, and while technically it would constitute retroactive suspensions, it doesn't constitute retroactive suspensions for offenses during the 2013 (or earlier) seasons.
But the quote isn't very specific, so we have speculation that Gordon might get off, and speculation that he might not. It remains interesting which speculative reports people are willing to accept.
TwinTurbo
Footballguy
HGH leaves the system in a day or two. I personally think HGH testing is not practical in it's current state and could be easily beaten. And even if they reach an agreement, it doesn't mean testing would start anytime soon. They would probably first need to conduct a study to establish baseline, normal levels for NFL players. Testing probably wouldn't start until next season.cstu said:
That said, I don't think the concession of reduced/lifted suspensions for a handful of players is even close to a bargaining chip.
Last edited by a moderator:
dschuler
Footballguy
Franknbeans
Footballguy
Darryl Talley
Footballguy
th3f00l
Footballguy
Clarence Hill @clarencehilljr
Follow
Per multiple sources, No new drug policy will get done today. So no chance of any of the suspended players playing this weekend
5:00 PM - 5 Sep 2014
Follow
Per multiple sources, No new drug policy will get done today. So no chance of any of the suspended players playing this weekend
5:00 PM - 5 Sep 2014
skinsrule05
Footballguy
I thought they had until game time on Sunday? Does that mean this is off the table until after the weekend? If so then the NFLs bargaining chip of eliminating suspensions weakens considerably.
They can't help themselves
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Did anyone actually think there was a chance any of these guys would play week 1???
GoodLloydHaveMercy
Footballguy
So it seems a suspension of at least one game no?
th3f00l
Footballguy
Per an ESPN report, suspended Browns Wide Receiver Josh Gordon has changed his mind and will not pursue legal action against the NFL in an attempt to shorten or overturn his full year ban.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ketamine Dreams
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
If Gordon had filed suit, that would also have seemed to trend in the right direction for Gordon owners, no?
Last edited by a moderator:
jvdesigns2002
Footballguy
Good point--but literally a week ago--Gordon lost an appeal and was pretty much a sure fire lock to be suspended for a year. I think that its fairly clear that odds of him playing this season have grossly increased from the sentiments that the fantasy community was feeling just a week ago. Even if it's still a longshot at this point in time--it's a far better long shot than it was a week ago. That in and of itself would validate a trend in the right direction in my opinion.
Last edited by a moderator:
georg013
Footballguy
Honest question here,
Why would anyone NOT want to watch Josh Gordon play this year other than him possibly smashing your team? Do you really care that he smokes weed? Do you really care about him not following the rules of a business you aren't even affiliated with? Will he disappoint your children and come up short as his job as role model? I'm really trying to understand what the angle is for owners who want nothing more than to see this kid suspended indefinitely. Why do you care? Personally, I could care less what these kids do on their own time. As long as they play the game, that's all that matters. I don't consider these guys anything more than entertainers. Just as I wouldn't fault Guns N Roses for snorting coke in between concerts back in the 80's and 90's. As long as the music rocks, do whatever you want. Perspective? Is it goodie-two-shoes syndrome? Are there really as many boy scouts out there as this thread suggests? Or are people just looking to argue something because they love arguing?
Why would anyone NOT want to watch Josh Gordon play this year other than him possibly smashing your team? Do you really care that he smokes weed? Do you really care about him not following the rules of a business you aren't even affiliated with? Will he disappoint your children and come up short as his job as role model? I'm really trying to understand what the angle is for owners who want nothing more than to see this kid suspended indefinitely. Why do you care? Personally, I could care less what these kids do on their own time. As long as they play the game, that's all that matters. I don't consider these guys anything more than entertainers. Just as I wouldn't fault Guns N Roses for snorting coke in between concerts back in the 80's and 90's. As long as the music rocks, do whatever you want. Perspective? Is it goodie-two-shoes syndrome? Are there really as many boy scouts out there as this thread suggests? Or are people just looking to argue something because they love arguing?
Care to unpack this? Because this is the situation as I see it:
1-Suspended for a year
2-Report that the NFL and NFLPA are working on a new drug policy
3-Speculation that new drug policy will include the unprecedented action of being retroactive
4-Report that if the speculation is accurate, the deal would need to be complete by this Sunday
5-DeMaurice Smith says on a radio show "If we get a deal done that covers players in this league year, I don't like that we punish players under a deal active in the old league year." Gordon's suspension wasn't from this league year.
6-Report that no deal will be reached by the "deadline"
7-Gordon decides not to file suit against the NFL
So basically, there MIGHT be a new NFL drug policy enacted soon, and there was/is speculation that this policy could be applied retroactively, it's reported that in order for this retroactive policy to take effect, it will need to take place by Sunday, DeMaurice Smith makes a vague comment about a deal that covers player in this league year, Gordon's suspension wasn't from this league year, the deal doesn't happen by the "deadline," Gordon decides not to file suit, and he is still suspended.
How, exactly is this trending in the right direction for Gordon owners? Because I'm a Gordon owner, and I'm not feeling as good today as I did last night.
Last edited by a moderator:
jvdesigns2002
Footballguy
are you feeling better about it today than you were a week ago? It might still be a longshot--but it's at least a shot--no?
whoa I'm reading some of the comments and there are a lot of hostility. Mostly from non Gordon owners. as an early investor in Gordon, I'm indifferent about him. If he plays, sure I reap the heavy benefits, if he doesn't, I'll drop him and pick up the guy I dropped sitting on the wire. It's no big deal. But all of these hostility is man, I think yall just salty.
coyote5
Footballguy
tim_whatley
Footballguy
I don't care that he toked, as in I think it's morally wrong. However he did break the rules, and I might feel more sympathy for him if he wasn't such a knucklehead that has broken the rules several times before including a DUI just weeks after his second failed drug test.
Basically, I think he's a #######, and I have little sympathy for dumbasses.
tim_whatley
Footballguy
To clarify, I am no angel and for sure I was no angel when I was Gordon's age. That said, I wasn't getting paid mad bank to be an angel, and, if I failed to perform my angel duties (through no one's fault but my own), I wouldn't expect any sympathy from fellow angels or non-angels.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ilov80s
Footballguy
tim_whatley
Footballguy
I actually picked him up in a couple of leagues early this AM. I hope he gets back in this year, but he's still a moron.
PatsWillWin
Footballguy
Ilov80s
Footballguy
So you converted?
