Josh Gordon Everything Thread

[Jerry Curl 109]

When is the penalty for the DUI arrest coming?

If the Marshawn Lynch experience is anything to go on, not until after it finishes winding its way through the legal system. Which could be upwards of two years.

If I heard correctly, the case got pushed back until November.

[Pumpnick 87]

so there has been negotiations between the nfl and nflpa on these issues ongoing for 3 years, and all of a sudden they are close to an agreement which just happens to land on the first game of the season? Do I have this correct?

[Adam Harstad 1,043]

When is the penalty for the DUI arrest coming?

If the Marshawn Lynch experience is anything to go on, not until after it finishes winding its way through the legal system. Which could be upwards of two years.

If I heard correctly, the case got pushed back until November.

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 4]

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?

[GoodLloydHaveMercy 45]

Any word if Gordon is traveling with the team?

Yes! My mole who works in baggage said he had personally checked in 3 large bags for Josh Gordon. That's the good news.

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.

Dude, I know you're just trying to be funny, but please know that you're not, and this is just really, really dumb.

Any word if Gordon is traveling with the team?

Yes! My mole who works in baggage said he had personally checked in 3 large bags for Josh Gordon. That's the good news.

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.

This is the dumbest thing I've read all day. Don't quit your day job because comedy isn't your thing.

ok thanks...carry on

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...

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 170]

The strangest part of this story is what is the rush on the part of the NFLPA? One high profile player got suspended but there are probably hundreds of players taking HGH right now who would be impacted. The NFL has been trying to get HGH testing done for years but now it appears the players are going to roll over to save Josh Gordon.

Actually, it looks like they were fine with Gordon going down for a year, but they're rolling over to save Welker from 4 games.

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.

[GregR 4,867]

so there has been negotiations between the nfl and nflpa on these issues ongoing for 3 years, and all of a sudden they are close to an agreement which just happens to land on the first game of the season? Do I have this correct?

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.

[ponchsox 587]

I don't give a #### what they do just get Josh back on the field ASAP.

[cstu 6,084]

3 years of negotiations and they NEED to get it done right before week 1? It would make sense to keep working on it and finalize the deal after the season, but what do I know?

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...

I would emphatically disagree.

Edited September 5, 2014 by cstu

[Sinn Fein 29,572]

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?

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 214]

The NFL knows how to be a drama queen

[elshagon 84]

I have a suspicion the lawsuit by Gordon's lawyers was delayed to see what comes of his suspension if the new drug policy gets implemented. If the new policy comes out on Sunday and Gordon is still suspended I bet he then sues.

[massraider 10,210]

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.

[Bayhawks 2,190]

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.

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?

[Maurile Tremblay 18,827]

When Gordon's appeal was going on and people were in here chirping about how his suspensions was going to get reduced to 6-8 games, I really had no idea how anyone could draw that conclusion. You had to be ignorant of what the appeal was about. The appeal was always going to be 0 or 16 games, with 16 being the heavy favorite. He either failed the test, or he didn't.

This part I still don't get. He failed the codeine test last year and appealed, but that wasn't 0 or 4 games, it was reduced to 2.

He didn't appeal then. He accepted a reduction to two games in lieu of appealing.

[massraider 10,210]

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.

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.

[Maurile Tremblay 18,827]

1% is an awfully small percentage. I would be THRILLED to bet on Gordon's suspension getting overturned at those odds. Hell, I'd throw down $500 on it if I was getting 99:1 odds. In a heartbeat. Betting $500 to win $49,500? I'd be all over that.

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.

[Bayhawks 2,190]

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.

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.

[Maurile Tremblay 18,827]

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.

[jdswan922 11]

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.

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?

http://m.espn.go.com/nfl/story?storyId=11471429

[Maurile Tremblay 18,827]

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?

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.)

[Bayhawks 2,190]

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.

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?

http://m.espn.go.com/nfl/story?storyId=11471429

Yes, but this was his actual quote:

"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 469]

The strangest part of this story is what is the rush on the part of the NFLPA? One high profile player got suspended but there are probably hundreds of players taking HGH right now who would be impacted. The NFL has been trying to get HGH testing done for years but now it appears the players are going to roll over to save Josh Gordon.

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.

That said, I don't think the concession of reduced/lifted suspensions for a handful of players is even close to a bargaining chip.

Edited September 6, 2014 by TwinTurbo

[dschuler 909]

I don't give a #### what they do just get Josh back on the field ASAP.

Exactly my thoughts

[Franknbeans 1,845]

Nathan Zegura with a Browns/Gordon update/opinion

[Bazinga! 283]

Wow..All I can guess is many of you enjoy making me laugh. Enjoy your waiver picks next week unless you chose another rabbit hole....which at this point seems likely for some of you

[Darryl Talley 36]

Nathan Zegura with a Browns/Gordon update/opinion

Sum this up please.

[th3f00l 33]

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

[skinsrule05 109]

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

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.

[DansRams 42]

Wow..All I can guess is many of you enjoy making me laugh. Enjoy your waiver picks next week unless you chose another rabbit hole....which at this point seems likely for some of you

They can't help themselves

[ghostguy123 3,021]

Did anyone actually think there was a chance any of these guys would play week 1???

[GoodLloydHaveMercy 45]

So it seems a suspension of at least one game no?

[th3f00l 33]

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.

Edited September 6, 2014 by th3f00l

[Ketamine Dreams 689]

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.

Banking on a change in the drug policy?

Edited September 6, 2014 by Ketamine Dreams

[Archer 106]

this seems to be trending in the right direction for Gordon owners....

[bmsarvis 22]

I wouldn't be surprised if this is trending in the right way for Welker owners. I'm really not sure if gordon sees any changes from this. Just a gut feeling and some reading between the lines on the smith article.

[Maurile Tremblay 18,827]

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.

this seems to be trending in the right direction for Gordon owners....

If Gordon had filed suit, that would also have seemed to trend in the right direction for Gordon owners, no?

[jvdesigns2002 2,259]

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.

this seems to be trending in the right direction for Gordon owners....

If Gordon had filed suit, that would also have seemed to trend in the right direction for Gordon owners, no?

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.

Edited September 6, 2014 by jvdesigns2002

[georg013 340]

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?

[Bayhawks 2,190]

this seems to be trending in the right direction for Gordon owners....

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.

Edited September 6, 2014 by Bayhawks

[jvdesigns2002 2,259]

this seems to be trending in the right direction for Gordon owners....

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-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.

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?

[georg013 340]

Sometimes guys who say they are Gordon owners aren't really Gordon "OWNERS". Think about that for a second then get back to me.

[mrbigg 17]

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 1,108]

Sometimes guys who say they are Gordon owners aren't really Gordon "OWNERS". Think about that for a second then get back to me.

like, woah.

[tim_whatley 16]

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?

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 16]

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.

Edited September 6, 2014 by tim_whatley

[Ilov80s 20,112]

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.

Anti-Gordite?

[tim_whatley 16]

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 669]

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?

Delayed? No.

Reversed? Yes. A small one.

[Ilov80s 20,112]

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.

So you converted?