Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Matt Waldman

Josh Gordon Everything Thread

Recommended Posts

Where would you guys take Gordon if you were drafting in a 12-team / 20-round / PPR league tonight?

I'm new to the FBG forums but have been over in Rotoworld. They also have a 170-page Gordon thread going with the same debate and I wish I had known about this one earlier.

Around WR 30 for me right now, obviously much higher on good news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No clue why the NFL/commish would have an issue waiting for the legal process to play out before issuing discipline.

Seems like it would only be part of the due process of a situation. Even NFL players can end up in situations where an arrest is made without charges being filed or charges are filed but the facts of the case dont support them. Why discipline players in those instances...or fight for the discretionary power to?

If that is a sticking point it would seem to be either a negotiating ploy or a symptom of a larger issue.

I agree with you, but playin devils advocate, players can try to drag out the legal process (Lynch) or plead down (Rice) to avoid being found guilty, or delay it, for an indeterminate amount of time.

They can, but that is also their legal right I guess.

If the legal system allows it, why should their be any rush to judgement by the league?

I.E. in Lynch's case why should he face any league discipline before it is determined that he actually did what he is accused of?

There are many government and corporate jobs that punish employees before DUIs get handled in court. Military people actually get tried twice, and some corporate employees have consequences as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No clue why the NFL/commish would have an issue waiting for the legal process to play out before issuing discipline.

Seems like it would only be part of the due process of a situation. Even NFL players can end up in situations where an arrest is made without charges being filed or charges are filed but the facts of the case dont support them. Why discipline players in those instances...or fight for the discretionary power to?

If that is a sticking point it would seem to be either a negotiating ploy or a symptom of a larger issue.

I agree with you, but playin devils advocate, players can try to drag out the legal process (Lynch) or plead down (Rice) to avoid being found guilty, or delay it, for an indeterminate amount of time.

They can, but that is also their legal right I guess.

If the legal system allows it, why should their be any rush to judgement by the league?

I.E. in Lynch's case why should he face any league discipline before it is determined that he actually did what he is accused of?

There are many government and corporate jobs that punish employees before DUIs get handled in court. Military people actually get tried twice, and some corporate employees have consequences as well.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that is within their potential purview to punish prior to conviction, in the NFLs instance given the PR ramifications their decisions can cause I just don't understand why they would want to do that.

I think it would come across really poorly if, for example they punished Lynch for DUI yet he was found not guilty if his day in court ever comes.

At least to me, it's a little different philosophically than positions that require public or corporate trust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No clue why the NFL/commish would have an issue waiting for the legal process to play out before issuing discipline.

Seems like it would only be part of the due process of a situation. Even NFL players can end up in situations where an arrest is made without charges being filed or charges are filed but the facts of the case dont support them. Why discipline players in those instances...or fight for the discretionary power to?

If that is a sticking point it would seem to be either a negotiating ploy or a symptom of a larger issue.

I agree with you, but playin devils advocate, players can try to drag out the legal process (Lynch) or plead down (Rice) to avoid being found guilty, or delay it, for an indeterminate amount of time.

They can, but that is also their legal right I guess.

If the legal system allows it, why should their be any rush to judgement by the league?

I.E. in Lynch's case why should he face any league discipline before it is determined that he actually did what he is accused of?

The NFL's discipline is for being in a job where you're a public face of the company, and going out and getting arrested and bringing the company bad publicity. Which is a much different reason than the legal system's discipline.

Player A might win a case on a legal technicality, yet he deserved to be arrested. Even if he ultimately got out of the legal system's punishment, he acted in a way that arrest was an expectation, and that might be behavior where punishment by his employer would be warranted.

But then looking at it from the player's side... Player B might get arrested for no particular good reason. "Driving while black" for example. If Player A deserves punishment but Player B doesn't and neither are found guilty, we can't use court case outcome to decide it, you'd need someone using their good judgment.

Of course the players don't trust Goodell being the one employing that judgment. So I can see both sides of the argument and both probably have some legitimate points.

Edit: See you posted again while I was typing... yeah, we're on the same page. But if it is established Lynch deserves punishment by the NFL for the arrest, whether he's convicted in the end may not really be relevant. The PR hit happened anyway. So long as it wasn't Lynch not having done anything at all that warranted arrest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No clue why the NFL/commish would have an issue waiting for the legal process to play out before issuing discipline.

Seems like it would only be part of the due process of a situation. Even NFL players can end up in situations where an arrest is made without charges being filed or charges are filed but the facts of the case dont support them. Why discipline players in those instances...or fight for the discretionary power to?

If that is a sticking point it would seem to be either a negotiating ploy or a symptom of a larger issue.

I agree with you, but playin devils advocate, players can try to drag out the legal process (Lynch) or plead down (Rice) to avoid being found guilty, or delay it, for an indeterminate amount of time.

They can, but that is also their legal right I guess.

If the legal system allows it, why should their be any rush to judgement by the league?

I.E. in Lynch's case why should he face any league discipline before it is determined that he actually did what he is accused of?

There are many government and corporate jobs that punish employees before DUIs get handled in court. Military people actually get tried twice, and some corporate employees have consequences as well.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that is within their potential purview to punish prior to conviction, in the NFLs instance given the PR ramifications their decisions can cause I just don't understand why they would want to do that.

I think it would come across really poorly if, for example they punished Lynch for DUI yet he was found not guilty if his day in court ever comes.

At least to me, it's a little different philosophically than positions that require public or corporate trust.

This is what they are trying to get away from. Someone like Leonard Little was hammered and killed somebody drunk driving, and was acquitted. Would you have suspended him?

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Ten-years-later-Leonard-Little-is-sorry-for-kil?urn=nfl,80784

http://sports-boards.net/forums/showthread.php/31403-Leonard-Little-acquitted-of-DWI-charge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:shrug:

Why do you want to suspend him, seems like the acquittal was consistent with the evidence presented at trial:


Rosenblum portrayed Stork as a a wolf in sheep's clothing who had an agenda of making as many DWI arrests as he could.

In his testimony Thursday, Stork admitted that the sobriety tests he administered to Little varied from established police procedures.

On Friday, the only defense witness that Rosenblum called was Ladue police Officer Keneth Andreski, who was Stork's backup when Little was arrested and was standing five feet from the defendant when Little was given the sobriety tests.

Stork had testified that Little was windmilling his arms and unable to stand on one foot. Andreski said he didn't recall seeing Little swinging his arms or holding them outward like airplane wings to keep his balance.

Andreski said he didn't recall seeing Little swaying or using the Mercedes for support, as Stork had told the jury.

Also testifying Friday was Sgt. Darin McClure. Under questioning by prosecutor Mark Bishop, McClure said he administered a breath test at the arrest scene on a portable machine and it showed that Little had been drinking. McClure said also he smelled alcohol on Little's breath.

Under Rosenblum's questioning, McClure said Little wasn't stumbling, swaying, losing his balance or smelling of alcohol at the Ladue police station, where he was taken 18 minutes after the traffic stop.

"Nothing in this case is consistent with intoxication," Rosenblum said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know man.

I know the court system isn't perfect, but I have trouble inserting my judgement over those with far more knowledge of the situation and circumstances than I have.

Based on what little I know Little certainly seems to have skated, but at the same time without full knowledge of the situation, if he didn't meet the criteria to be considered DWI and this was essentially just an accident where some one was unfortunately killed I can't argue for his suspension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And just for the record - Little was not acquitted of the first DWI/manslaughter case - he was guilty and sentenced for that one. The articles linked above were for a different case...in case anyone cares of the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And just for the record - Little was not acquitted of the first DWI/manslaughter case - he was guilty and sentenced for that one. The articles linked above were for a different case...in case anyone cares of the facts.

Fair enough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I.E. in Lynch's case why should he face any league discipline before it is determined that he actually did what he is accused of?

He wouldn't. Goodell would determine his guilt before suspending him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No clue why the NFL/commish would have an issue waiting for the legal process to play out before issuing discipline.

Seems like it would only be part of the due process of a situation. Even NFL players can end up in situations where an arrest is made without charges being filed or charges are filed but the facts of the case dont support them. Why discipline players in those instances...or fight for the discretionary power to?

If that is a sticking point it would seem to be either a negotiating ploy or a symptom of a larger issue.

I agree with you, but playin devils advocate, players can try to drag out the legal process (Lynch) or plead down (Rice) to avoid being found guilty, or delay it, for an indeterminate amount of time.

If Goodell was busted for DUI even he would be dragging out the legal process to try and get it pleaded down. Any reasonable person that could afford it would do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I.E. in Lynch's case why should he face any league discipline before it is determined that he actually did what he is accused of?

He wouldn't. Goodell would determine his guilt before suspending him.

I can understand why the players have some "concerns" with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I.E. in Lynch's case why should he face any league discipline before it is determined that he actually did what he is accused of?

He wouldn't. Goodell would determine his guilt before suspending him.

I can understand why the players have some "concerns" with that.

Agreed. The players are trying to get a 3rd party to make that determination, right? Seems like a fair request IMO.

I will be sad once this is resolved and we have to move on to another topic in order to make cheap, unwarranted shots at each other on message boards. This is such a good one. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I.E. in Lynch's case why should he face any league discipline before it is determined that he actually did what he is accused of?

He wouldn't. Goodell would determine his guilt before suspending him.

I can understand why the players have some "concerns" with that.

Agreed. The players are trying to get a 3rd party to make that determination, right? Seems like a fair request IMO.

I will be sad once this is resolved and we have to move on to another topic in order to make cheap, unwarranted shots at each other on message boards. This is such a good one. :)

I really don't understand why any Commish wouldn't want this resolved by a third party, doesn't he have enough stuff to keep him busy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the heck would this change Gordon's or others suspensions? It's like saying the speed limit was just raised to 80mph, so if anyone got a speeding ticket under 80mph within the last year they will have them ripped up. Pipe dream.

If you are currently being punished for a past incident of breaking a rule, once that rule no longer exists, your punishment should immediately end.

Nope if you are suspended under an existing rule at the time, the punishment should continue until complete...This new rule if they are to enact it, should apply to anybody caught after the new rule goes into effect....That to me seems like common sense.

Have you ever negotiated for anything? NFL made its point with the existing rules/penalties. The NFL does not want stars missing games, any more than the players do - so the easiest thing for them to give up in a negotiation is something they would gladly give up.

Players walk way feeling like they won something, owners get the HGH testing in place, while conceding something they would have conceded for free. Everyone wins here imo.

Sweet Lavon Brazil will be back.....Oh no wait he got cut because of his suspension.......I wonder who he gets to sue now that he lost his livelihood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I.E. in Lynch's case why should he face any league discipline before it is determined that he actually did what he is accused of?

He wouldn't. Goodell would determine his guilt before suspending him.

I can understand why the players have some "concerns" with that.

Agreed. The players are trying to get a 3rd party to make that determination, right? Seems like a fair request IMO.

I will be sad once this is resolved and we have to move on to another topic in order to make cheap, unwarranted shots at each other on message boards. This is such a good one. :)

I really don't understand why any Commish wouldn't want this resolved by a third party, doesn't he have enough stuff to keep him busy?

He has a God complex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the heck would this change Gordon's or others suspensions? It's like saying the speed limit was just raised to 80mph, so if anyone got a speeding ticket under 80mph within the last year they will have them ripped up. Pipe dream.

If you are currently being punished for a past incident of breaking a rule, once that rule no longer exists, your punishment should immediately end.

Nope if you are suspended under an existing rule at the time, the punishment should continue until complete...This new rule if they are to enact it, should apply to anybody caught after the new rule goes into effect....That to me seems like common sense.

Have you ever negotiated for anything? NFL made its point with the existing rules/penalties. The NFL does not want stars missing games, any more than the players do - so the easiest thing for them to give up in a negotiation is something they would gladly give up.

Players walk way feeling like they won something, owners get the HGH testing in place, while conceding something they would have conceded for free. Everyone wins here imo.

Sweet Lavon Brazil will be back.....Oh no wait he got cut because of his suspension.......I wonder who he gets to sue now that he lost his livelihood.

He's welcome to sue whoever he wants, it's still America.

Problem is, he'll have a tough time finding a lawyer willing to waist,err, spend the time for such little jack, as his livelyhood wasn't worth all that much because you know, Brazil sucked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I.E. in Lynch's case why should he face any league discipline before it is determined that he actually did what he is accused of?

He wouldn't. Goodell would determine his guilt before suspending him.

I can understand why the players have some "concerns" with that.

Sure.

I don't think it's a terrible policy to have Goodell make the initial determination, but the player should be able to appeal to a genuinely neutral arbitrator, not to someone handpicked by Goodell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the heck would this change Gordon's or others suspensions? It's like saying the speed limit was just raised to 80mph, so if anyone got a speeding ticket under 80mph within the last year they will have them ripped up. Pipe dream.

If you are currently being punished for a past incident of breaking a rule, once that rule no longer exists, your punishment should immediately end.
Nope if you are suspended under an existing rule at the time, the punishment should continue until complete...This new rule if they are to enact it, should apply to anybody caught after the new rule goes into effect....That to me seems like common sense.

Have you ever negotiated for anything? NFL made its point with the existing rules/penalties. The NFL does not want stars missing games, any more than the players do - so the easiest thing for them to give up in a negotiation is something they would gladly give up.

Players walk way feeling like they won something, owners get the HGH testing in place, while conceding something they would have conceded for free. Everyone wins here imo.

Sweet Lavon Brazil will be back.....Oh no wait he got cut because of his suspension.......I wonder who he gets to sue now that he lost his livelihood.

He's welcome to sue whoever he wants, it's still America.

Problem is, he'll have a tough time finding a lawyer willing to waist,err, spend the time for such little jack, as his livelyhood wasn't worth all that much because you know, Brazil sucked.

My point being, they go retro on this and they create a spider web of problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the heck would this change Gordon's or others suspensions? It's like saying the speed limit was just raised to 80mph, so if anyone got a speeding ticket under 80mph within the last year they will have them ripped up. Pipe dream.

If you are currently being punished for a past incident of breaking a rule, once that rule no longer exists, your punishment should immediately end.
Nope if you are suspended under an existing rule at the time, the punishment should continue until complete...This new rule if they are to enact it, should apply to anybody caught after the new rule goes into effect....That to me seems like common sense.

Have you ever negotiated for anything? NFL made its point with the existing rules/penalties. The NFL does not want stars missing games, any more than the players do - so the easiest thing for them to give up in a negotiation is something they would gladly give up.

Players walk way feeling like they won something, owners get the HGH testing in place, while conceding something they would have conceded for free. Everyone wins here imo.

Sweet Lavon Brazil will be back.....Oh no wait he got cut because of his suspension.......I wonder who he gets to sue now that he lost his livelihood.

He's welcome to sue whoever he wants, it's still America.

Problem is, he'll have a tough time finding a lawyer willing to waist,err, spend the time for such little jack, as his livelyhood wasn't worth all that much because you know, Brazil sucked.

My point being, they go retro on this and they create a spider web of problems.

Not really, it's not the rocket science some are making it out to be.

They will define clearly who gets reprieve and who doesn't, it's agreed on by the NFLPA, and it's done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps someone should inform the league and its lawyers about retro and lawsuits! Im sure they havent taken this into consideration. Thank God they have us!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

How can you say that with any confidence? There's zero evidence I'm aware of that either is any more important (or even a factor) in driving the change. Just because Welker is more recent doesn't mean anything without knowing when the discussions began on the changes, which has not been reliably reported.

Evidence isn't the point, I'm just saying how it looks.

Just like everyone said that the Rice suspension vs. the Gordon suspension made it *LOOK* like the league thought drugs were 8 times worse than domestic violence. In reality, there was no evidence that the league felt that way (and abundant evidence to the contrary, since the first offense for domestic violence got Rice two games while NFL players don't actually start missing any time until their third positive test for drugs). But the quick back-to-back nature of their offenses sure made for some bad optics.

Similarly, I'm sure the league was negotiating the deal long before Welker's suspension was announced, but the quick back-to-back timing of these news releases sure makes for some bad optics.

I don't believe many thoughtful fans believe that this is because of Welker's suspension, so I do not agree it looks that way at all. Virtually no one on this board has suggested that, which is why I asked about the evidence anyone is doing so (or that the decision is driven by Welker).

It seems like you're just throwing that out there for a reaction--surely you don't believe it to be true, right?

Edited by Whizzinator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you guys who are playing in the FFPC...blind bidding isn't open until after week 1. We have 1000 bucks to last all season, and you can't make any transactions once you run out. That said, how much are we bidding for Gordon? At least 900 right? 950?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you guys who are playing in the FFPC...blind bidding isn't open until after week 1. We have 1000 bucks to last all season, and you can't make any transactions once you run out. That said, how much are we bidding for Gordon? At least 900 right? 950?

There are some of us that aren't bidding anything, we've already rostered him because it's the thing to do, until it isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you guys who are playing in the FFPC...blind bidding isn't open until after week 1. We have 1000 bucks to last all season, and you can't make any transactions once you run out. That said, how much are we bidding for Gordon? At least 900 right? 950?

There are some of us that aren't bidding anything, we've already rostered him because it's the thing to do, until it isn't.

Ok thanks. Anyone else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you guys who are playing in the FFPC...blind bidding isn't open until after week 1. We have 1000 bucks to last all season, and you can't make any transactions once you run out. That said, how much are we bidding for Gordon? At least 900 right? 950?

There are some of us that aren't bidding anything, we've already rostered him because it's the thing to do, until it isn't.

Right. Who'd cut their 4th round pick before a game was played?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you guys who are playing in the FFPC...blind bidding isn't open until after week 1. We have 1000 bucks to last all season, and you can't make any transactions once you run out. That said, how much are we bidding for Gordon? At least 900 right? 950?

There are some of us that aren't bidding anything, we've already rostered him because it's the thing to do, until it isn't.
Ok thanks. Anyone else?

Nope... Pretty sure Ojaays is the only one still following this thread

;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypothetical:

If this was Manning,( the good one), Brees or Rogers, you know, guys that will win you your league,would you have rostered them in the hope they play most of the year?

That's really all we are talking about here, the rest is noise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ESPN Cleveland's Tony Grossi believes there's a "better than 50 percent chance" of Josh Gordon playing this year.

The NFL and NFLPA are working on a new drug policy that could seek to reverse suspensions that occurred this year. It potentially allows for Gordon and Wes Welker to be reinstated or see their bans reduced. There's currently several sticking points between the sides, however, and retroactively applying changes is a small part of a much larger negotiation. Gordon should continue to be stashed in all leagues until the situation works itself out.

Rotoworld just posted this

Edited by jvdesigns2002

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ESPN Cleveland's Tony Grossi believes there's a "better than 50 percent chance" of Josh Gordon playing this year.

The NFL and NFLPA are working on a new drug policy that could seek to reverse suspensions that occurred this year. It potentially allows for Gordon and Wes Welker to be reinstated or see their bans reduced. There's currently several sticking points between the sides, however, and retroactively applying changes is a small part of a much larger negotiation. Gordon should continue to be stashed in all leagues until the situation works itself out.

Rotoworld just posted this

I'll take those odds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe many thoughtful fans believe that this is because of Welker's suspension, so I do not agree it looks that way at all. Virtually no one on this board has suggested that, which is why I asked about the evidence anyone is doing so (or that the decision is driven by Welker).

It seems like you're just throwing that out there for a reaction--surely you don't believe it to be true, right?

Plenty of thoughtful fans believed that the league cared more about drugs than domestic violence after Rice's suspension was handed down. They were happy to ignore the fact that Josh Gordon was a repeat offender who only got a stiffer penalty because he committed a violation while in the THIRD stage of the league's substance abuse program. Again, this isn't about thoughtful reflection, this is about optics.

Again, I absolutely don't believe that the league cares more about Wes Welker than Josh Gordon. I think that this had been in the works for a while and the timing was just unfortunate. Hell, I think Denver knew about Welker's suspension weeks in advance. But yes, it is interesting that after Gordon's suspension was upheld there was complete radio silence, but then immediately after Welker's suspension came out these frenzied reports surfaced that the league had to agree to this new deal immediately so that Gordon and Welker could get back on the field.

Also, for what it's worth...

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_26477269/wes-welker-suspension-factors-into-possible-update-nfl-drug-policy-broncos

The suspension of Broncos receiver Wes Welker has suddenly become a focal point in negotiations between the NFL and players union on a revised drug policy, according to sources on both sides.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2014/09/03/nfl-nflpa-trying-again-to-complete-deal-to-implement-hgh-testing/

One person close to the situation said a catalyst for the latest change in attitude toward the negotiations was the four-game suspension given this week to Denver Broncos wide receiver Wes Welker for testing positive for a banned performance-enhancing substance.

:shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe many thoughtful fans believe that this is because of Welker's suspension, so I do not agree it looks that way at all. Virtually no one on this board has suggested that, which is why I asked about the evidence anyone is doing so (or that the decision is driven by Welker).

It seems like you're just throwing that out there for a reaction--surely you don't believe it to be true, right?

Plenty of thoughtful fans believed that the league cared more about drugs than domestic violence after Rice's suspension was handed down. They were happy to ignore the fact that Josh Gordon was a repeat offender who only got a stiffer penalty because he committed a violation while in the THIRD stage of the league's substance abuse program. Again, this isn't about thoughtful reflection, this is about optics.

Again, I absolutely don't believe that the league cares more about Wes Welker than Josh Gordon. I think that this had been in the works for a while and the timing was just unfortunate. Hell, I think Denver knew about Welker's suspension weeks in advance. But yes, it is interesting that after Gordon's suspension was upheld there was complete radio silence, but then immediately after Welker's suspension came out these frenzied reports surfaced that the league had to agree to this new deal immediately so that Gordon and Welker could get back on the field.

Also, for what it's worth...

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_26477269/wes-welker-suspension-factors-into-possible-update-nfl-drug-policy-broncos

The suspension of Broncos receiver Wes Welker has suddenly become a focal point in negotiations between the NFL and players union on a revised drug policy, according to sources on both sides.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2014/09/03/nfl-nflpa-trying-again-to-complete-deal-to-implement-hgh-testing/

One person close to the situation said a catalyst for the latest change in attitude toward the negotiations was the four-game suspension given this week to Denver Broncos wide receiver Wes Welker for testing positive for a banned performance-enhancing substance.

:shrug:

Why has "optics" become a thing?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw this:

(FFChamps)The NFL and NFLPA are on the verge of making a new policy regarding substance abuse and part of that new agreement would lessen the penalties for all those suspended for violating the previous policy. In short, Josh Gordon and even Wes Welker may soon have their suspensions cut down significantly

Analysis: This obviously would be huge news for Josh Gordon considering right now hes suspended for the whole season. Josh Gordon should be picked up RIGHT NOW because if this deal goes through, hell be on the field for 2014. Drop your backup QB, backup TE, or WR5, and go out and get the Number 1 wide receiver from 2013.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe many thoughtful fans believe that this is because of Welker's suspension, so I do not agree it looks that way at all. Virtually no one on this board has suggested that, which is why I asked about the evidence anyone is doing so (or that the decision is driven by Welker).

It seems like you're just throwing that out there for a reaction--surely you don't believe it to be true, right?

Plenty of thoughtful fans believed that the league cared more about drugs than domestic violence after Rice's suspension was handed down. They were happy to ignore the fact that Josh Gordon was a repeat offender who only got a stiffer penalty because he committed a violation while in the THIRD stage of the league's substance abuse program. Again, this isn't about thoughtful reflection, this is about optics.

Yes, and Rice vs Gordon was not what I referred to---Gordon vs Welker was.

The Denver paper focusing on Welker has an obvious explanation.

There was simply not radio silence after Gordon----that's a bizarre comment.

I think you're locked into a narrative that is pretty distant from what occurred here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw this:

(FFChamps)The NFL and NFLPA are on the verge of making a new policy regarding substance abuse and part of that new agreement would lessen the penalties for all those suspended for violating the previous policy. In short, Josh Gordon and even Wes Welker may soon have their suspensions cut down significantly

Analysis: This obviously would be huge news for Josh Gordon considering right now hes suspended for the whole season. Josh Gordon should be picked up RIGHT NOW because if this deal goes through, hell be on the field for 2014. Drop your backup QB, backup TE, or WR5, and go out and get the Number 1 wide receiver from 2013.

That was posted earlier in the day before talks stalled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypothetical:

If this was Manning,( the good one), Brees or Rogers, you know, guys that will win you your league,would you have rostered them in the hope they play most of the year?

That's really all we are talking about here, the rest is noise.

Actually, some of us are Browns fans and don't give a flying #### about your pretend football squad. But yes, I realize we are in the minority. Which explains the over-zealous nature of many of the posters here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypothetical:If this was Manning,( the good one), Brees or Rogers, you know, guys that will win you your league,would you have rostered them in the hope they play most of the year?That's really all we are talking about here, the rest is noise.

Actually, some of us are Browns fans and don't give a flying #### about your pretend football squad. But yes, I realize we are in the minority. Which explains the over-zealous nature of many of the posters here.

Last time I checked, this was a fantasy football board called the shark pool.

I'm sure there are plenty of browns boards you can hang out in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypothetical:

If this was Manning,( the good one), Brees or Rogers, you know, guys that will win you your league,would you have rostered them in the hope they play most of the year?

That's really all we are talking about here, the rest is noise.

Actually, some of us are Browns fans

My condolences

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Josh Gordon Suspended for the year


Josh Gordon will appeal


Has a great case, likely to be dismissed


likely to be 8 games


theres a chance its less than 8


Its gonna be all 16 or nothing


copied from reddit but the story so far


Year long suspension upheld


Gordon Will play in CFL


Gordon cant play in CFL


Gordon will file an injunction


Gordon will work at auto dealership


Rule change by Sunday (NFL Week 1) could lift Gordon's suspension entirely


Gordon will not sue


NFLPA seeks suspension reversal


Earliest new drug policy will be finalized would be Monday or Tuesday (NFL Week 2)


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Josh Gordon Suspended for the year

Josh Gordon will appeal

Has a great case, likely to be dismissed

likely to be 8 games

theres a chance its less than 8

Its gonna be all 16 or nothing

copied from reddit but the story so far

Year long suspension upheld

Gordon Will play in CFL

Gordon cant play in CFL

Gordon will file an injunction

Gordon will work at auto dealership

Rule change by Sunday (NFL Week 1) could lift Gordon's suspension entirely

Gordon will not sue

NFLPA seeks suspension reversal

Earliest new drug policy will be finalized would be Monday or Tuesday (NFL Week 2)

A little more editing and you've got the makings of 3 Haikus there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Josh Gordon Suspended for the year

Josh Gordon will appeal

Has a great case, likely to be dismissed

likely to be 8 games

theres a chance its less than 8

Its gonna be all 16 or nothing

copied from reddit but the story so far

Year long suspension upheld

Gordon Will play in CFL

Gordon cant play in CFL

Gordon will file an injunction

Gordon will work at auto dealership

Rule change by Sunday (NFL Week 1) could lift Gordon's suspension entirely

Gordon will not sue

NFLPA seeks suspension reversal

Earliest new drug policy will be finalized would be Monday or Tuesday (NFL Week 2)

This is your brain on Twitter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypothetical:If this was Manning,( the good one), Brees or Rogers, you know, guys that will win you your league,would you have rostered them in the hope they play most of the year?That's really all we are talking about here, the rest is noise.

Actually, some of us are Browns fans and don't give a flying #### about your pretend football squad. But yes, I realize we are in the minority. Which explains the over-zealous nature of many of the posters here.

Last time I checked, this was a fantasy football board called the shark pool.

I'm sure there are plenty of browns boards you can hang out in.

The Shark Pool (NFL Talk)

IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT THE SHARK POOL Threads that are asking for advice on how you should draft or manage your team belong in The Assistant Coach forum.

Yea, sorry the world doesn't revolve around your pretend team "coach."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypothetical:

If this was Manning,( the good one), Brees or Rogers, you know, guys that will win you your league,would you have rostered them in the hope they play most of the year?

That's really all we are talking about here, the rest is noise.

Actually, some of us are Browns fans

My condolences

No argument there.

Edited by TxBuckeye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypothetical:If this was Manning,( the good one), Brees or Rogers, you know, guys that will win you your league,would you have rostered them in the hope they play most of the year?That's really all we are talking about here, the rest is noise.

Actually, some of us are Browns fans and don't give a flying #### about your pretend football squad. But yes, I realize we are in the minority. Which explains the over-zealous nature of many of the posters here.
Last time I checked, this was a fantasy football board called the shark pool.I'm sure there are plenty of browns boards you can hang out in.
The Shark Pool (NFL Talk)IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT THE SHARK POOL Threads that are asking for advice on how you should draft or manage your team belong in The Assistant Coach forum.Yea, sorry the world doesn't revolve around your pretend team "coach."

There is zero information in this thread about my ff team, other than Gordon is on the roster, not sure what point your trying to make.

It's a thread about Gordon, I've made many posts in this thread, and this thread has been the subject of multiple bans by the mods, I've received, zero bans to date, so , I'm assuming that , you know, the mods think what I posted was ok, but since you are here now, we no longer need mods, thanks for helping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago

It looks likely that Wes Welker will remain suspended for Week One of the NFL season.According to Pro Football Talk the NFL and NFLPA continue to hammer out a new comprehensive drug policy, but do not expect it to be done until Monday or Tuesday at the earliest. This means that suspended players like Denver Broncos receiver Wes Welker, and Cleveland Browns receiver Josh Gordon will remain suspended for week one of the NFL season, but could gain clearance for next weeks games.

Source says earliest a new drug policy will be finalized is Monday or Tuesday. Existing suspensions will stand for Week One.

— ProFootballTalk (@ProFootballTalk) September 6, 2014

This means that Broncos wide receiver Wes Welker has a chance to play against the division rival Kansas City Chiefs as they head to Denver in week two of the season. The big question remains whether or not Welker's suspension will be reduced or even wiped away completely. According to ESPN's Jeff Legwold, the Denver Broncos believe that Welker's suspension will be wiped away completely if the NFL and NFLPA come to an agreement on a new drug policy next week, but it is unclear if that will happen or not. So it's not a given, but it remains a possibility. It is unclear whether or not if Welker would have been able to play this week anyways. Welker suffered a third concussion in under a year during the Denver Broncos third preseason game against the Houston Texans. Welker did return to practice this week before being suspended, but was not fully cleared. So this week off could be a blessing in disguise for Welker. It will give him another week to recover from the concussion, and we potentially could see him next week against theKansas City Chiefs. We here at Mile High Report will keep you posted on this in the coming days as more news and updates become available! Go Broncos!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypothetical:

If this was Manning,( the good one), Brees or Rogers, you know, guys that will win you your league,would you have rostered them in the hope they play most of the year?

That's really all we are talking about here, the rest is noise.

Actually, some of us are Browns fans and don't give a flying #### about your pretend football squad. But yes, I realize we are in the minority. Which explains the over-zealous nature of many of the posters here.

This is a big example of not getting it. Wow.

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.