What's new
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 (11 Viewers)

buck naked said:
Proust Loves Cake said:
GoBirds said:
Odds of reduced suspension?
Click to expand...
Less than winning the lottery. While still better than a non-zero chance, it's still awfully, terribly, ridiculously low.

I really don't understand the disproportionate speculation that he might get reinstated, except that it is based on hope. Hope is a nice thing and all, but it often clouds basic logic, reason, and common sense. The league is absolutely not going to put forward a proposal that opens itself up to legal challenges by others who have been negatively affected by rules they violated when in effect, but were later changed. This is a can of worms, a Pandora's Box, and every other cliche you can conjure up, that the owners simply won't ever agree to. And, the players obviously are not going to hinge the agreement on one or two guys, particularly a recidivist drug user and an aging, soon-to-be irrelevant slot receiver.

Bottom line, these guys violated rules that were in place, and the players' union isn't going to move mountains to get these guys cleared. The owners clearly have every motivation to avoid that, as well.

Gordon will serve his suspension, as he should, as he violated the rules as they were written when he chose for the umpteenth time to put himself above the rules. And, Welker is an idiot and will serve his time, as well.

Anything else is grasping at a small time lottery ticket to barely increase the chances of winning a small time fantasy league. Forgive me, but I fundamentally haven't understood Gordon Owner Logic at any point in this thread.
Click to expand...
Looks like you a re dead wrong - http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11497297/nflpa-vote-revising-drug-policy-tabled
Click to expand...
The reinstatement of players such as Gordon, Welker and Scandrick would be based on the fact that none of those players would have been suspended under the new policy. That was not a major hurdle, sources said. It is unclear whether the NFLPA will continue negotiations or table them for the year. It is possible the union could set a deadline by next Tuesday to reach an agreement, a source said.
Click to expand...
 
Maven said:
Been a ton of conflicting, changing reports. But thats how I read it yes. RT @Stevehague5: so gordon won't be off the hook?

-Greg Rosenthall

https://twitter.com/greggrosenthal/status/509564563700719616
Click to expand...
Hence the reason there's been complaints from team owners about retroactively applying the new drug rules. For example, if I'm Haslam, there's no way I agree to a provision which allows Welker to return immediately if Gordon remains banned.

Mortenson also reported that a late point of contention is that if the NFL allows suspended players such as Gordon and Denver's Wes Welker back in, other NFL owners will fight to have their suspended players re-instated. The NFL has already begun receiving complaints from owners who want their players re-instated
Click to expand...
http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2014/09/josh_gordon_could_be_re-instat_1.html

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rick James said:
Ojaays said:
Rick James said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Ok thanks. Anyone else?
Click to expand...
992 id say.

 
Based upon a late proposal the NFL sent to the players Tuesday that included unacceptable protocol in the areas of neutral arbitration and HGH testing, the NFL Players Association's 32 player representatives decided to table a scheduled vote on an overhauled drug policy that has had the two parties engaged in intensive talks over the past two weeks, according to player sources.

The NFLPA was expecting to take a vote that would have revised policy and allowed for the immediate reinstatement of almost 20 players currently under suspension, including star receivers Josh Gordon of the Cleveland Browns and Wes Welker of the Denver Broncos, as well as cornerback Orlando Scandrick of the Dallas Cowboys, sources said.

A vote on Wednesday has not been ruled out, a person directly involved in the discussions told ESPN. The source also said that the suspended players who would be reinstated believe they will soon return to the field.

Even while scheduling a vote and holding conference calls during the day, the NFLPA and NFL were hoping to close gaps that would conclude negotiations. The player reps agreed the latest proposal was not worthy of a vote that would require 17 yes votes to be enacted.

The league would not give a green light on allowing a player to challenge a positive HGH test on the basis of flawed science, an appeal that would go to arbitration for a ruling, per sources.

On HGH testing, the league and union also could not come to complete agreement on non-positive tests related to law enforcement cases in which a player purchases the drug. The league balked at allowing those players to appeal to an arbitration panel on the basis of whether their due process was not recognized; a successful appeal on that basis would have gone to a a binding ruling from a neutral arbitrator.

The reinstatement of players such as Gordon, Welker and Scandrick would be based on the fact that none of those players would have been suspended under the new policy. That was not a major hurdle, sources said.

It is unclear whether the NFLPA will continue negotiations or table them for the year. It is possible the union could set a deadline by next Tuesday to reach an agreement, a source said.

ESPN NFL reporter Ed Werder contributed to this report.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11497297/nflpa-vote-revising-drug-policy-tabled

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
buck naked said:
Proust Loves Cake said:
GoBirds said:
Odds of reduced suspension?
Click to expand...
Less than winning the lottery. While still better than a non-zero chance, it's still awfully, terribly, ridiculously low.

I really don't understand the disproportionate speculation that he might get reinstated, except that it is based on hope. Hope is a nice thing and all, but it often clouds basic logic, reason, and common sense. The league is absolutely not going to put forward a proposal that opens itself up to legal challenges by others who have been negatively affected by rules they violated when in effect, but were later changed. This is a can of worms, a Pandora's Box, and every other cliche you can conjure up, that the owners simply won't ever agree to. And, the players obviously are not going to hinge the agreement on one or two guys, particularly a recidivist drug user and an aging, soon-to-be irrelevant slot receiver.

Bottom line, these guys violated rules that were in place, and the players' union isn't going to move mountains to get these guys cleared. The owners clearly have every motivation to avoid that, as well.

Gordon will serve his suspension, as he should, as he violated the rules as they were written when he chose for the umpteenth time to put himself above the rules. And, Welker is an idiot and will serve his time, as well.

Anything else is grasping at a small time lottery ticket to barely increase the chances of winning a small time fantasy league. Forgive me, but I fundamentally haven't understood Gordon Owner Logic at any point in this thread.
Click to expand...
Looks like you a re dead wrong - http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11497297/nflpa-vote-revising-drug-policy-tabled
Click to expand...
The reinstatement of players such as Gordon, Welker and Scandrick would be based on the fact that none of those players would have been suspended under the new policy. That was not a major hurdle, sources said. It is unclear whether the NFLPA will continue negotiations or table them for the year. It is possible the union could set a deadline by next Tuesday to reach an agreement, a source said.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
What about the line right after what you bolder & underlined? You know where it says it's not even sure if the NFLPA will even continue negotiations or put them on hold until after the year?

Essentially, Mortenson screwed the pooch on Monday. He reported that an agreement had been reached, and the players would vote on Tuesday. This information likely came from the same "source" of this article. No agreement had been reached, and no vote was held. Obviously, Mort's "source" had been wrong, because when the NFL finally sent a proposal to the NFLPA (very late) on Tuesday, it was so unacceptable that they didn't even give the players the opportunity to vote on it. There had been no agreement, as Mort's "source" had told him.

Furthermore, the reinstatment of suspended players WAS NOT a part of this proposal; if it were the article wouldn't say "That was not a major hurdle." It if were part of the policy, Mort's "source" would have said so.

Also, Mort's article downplays the fact that the NFLPA and the league couldn't agree on how players would be able to appeal failed HGH tests and whether purchasing HGH equaled postiive tests. These are not minor points. The NFLPA isn't going to hurry this new policy through and gloss over these points. Obviously the fact that Goodell acts as the original punisher and hearer of an appeals in player-conduct policy situations is something the NFLPA doesn't like; they aren't going to give in on this point, IMO.

Then, Mort just gives a very quick mention to the fact that the NFLPA doesn't even know if they will continue negotiating at this point. Very quick note, in passing, at the end of the article; hoping no one pays attention to it.

Mort's "source" gave him bad information on Monday, now he's trying to phrase things in such a way that he doesn't look as bad. But the fact is that he reported they had an agreement in place, they didn't. He reported a vote was scheduled, it wasn't. He reported that the suspended players could be re-instated, that doesn't appear to be in the proposal the NFLPA received.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ditka Butkus said:
Sabertooth said:
Ditka Butkus said:
Sabertooth said:
Ditka Butkus said:
Maven said:
uh oh


Mary Kay Cabot@MaryKayCabot
Source told me that if #NFL lets Gordon and Welker back in, everyone dating back to new CBA in '11 will fight for revised suspensions and $$



11:30am · 9 Sep 2014 · Twitter Web
Click to expand...
As well as they should....To go retro is a stupid bad decision.
Click to expand...
Wow, did Josh Gordon steal your dog or something? What do you have against the kid?
Click to expand...
Easy..he continually violates the terms of his employment and uses illegal drugs and many of you want to make him some kind of a cult figure..This is exactly what is currently wrong with our society, nobody wants to infuse personal responsibility in anyone...Oh he's not a bad kid, he is just misunderstood, lets give him another break...This kid needs to learn a lesson or it will end a lot worse for him than a 1 year suspension from a kids game.
Click to expand...
If the terms are changed, then you'll fully support him then right? As long as he is in compliance with all the rules?

That's the thing about all of this. All the hearings and appeals are just to determine whether or not he violated the rules and also to assess the proper punish if he did indeed break a rule. Its nothing personal for him either. He's going to challenge the rules, the way they are written, to the fullest extent allowed. Why wouldn't you want him to do that? A rule isn't a guideline, it's a rule. So if the rule is poorly written, then it is going to be challenged, as it should.
Click to expand...
No I won't support him... because the rules were changed expressly for his benefit which is even worse, because now "not only did I violate the rules, they actually changed the rules for me"... The lesson being don't worry Josh you can continue to be an irresponsible punk and do whatever the #### you want because you are untouchable...
Click to expand...
well, actually, it seems they changed the rules after wes welker got in trouble. id say gordon is just "collateral damage" in the effort to keep the white guy on the field.

 
cvnpoka said:
Ditka Butkus said:
Sabertooth said:
Ditka Butkus said:
Sabertooth said:
Ditka Butkus said:
Maven said:
uh oh


Mary Kay Cabot@MaryKayCabot
Source told me that if #NFL lets Gordon and Welker back in, everyone dating back to new CBA in '11 will fight for revised suspensions and $$



11:30am · 9 Sep 2014 · Twitter Web
Click to expand...
As well as they should....To go retro is a stupid bad decision.
Click to expand...
Wow, did Josh Gordon steal your dog or something? What do you have against the kid?
Click to expand...
Easy..he continually violates the terms of his employment and uses illegal drugs and many of you want to make him some kind of a cult figure..This is exactly what is currently wrong with our society, nobody wants to infuse personal responsibility in anyone...Oh he's not a bad kid, he is just misunderstood, lets give him another break...This kid needs to learn a lesson or it will end a lot worse for him than a 1 year suspension from a kids game.
Click to expand...
If the terms are changed, then you'll fully support him then right? As long as he is in compliance with all the rules?

That's the thing about all of this. All the hearings and appeals are just to determine whether or not he violated the rules and also to assess the proper punish if he did indeed break a rule. Its nothing personal for him either. He's going to challenge the rules, the way they are written, to the fullest extent allowed. Why wouldn't you want him to do that? A rule isn't a guideline, it's a rule. So if the rule is poorly written, then it is going to be challenged, as it should.
Click to expand...
No I won't support him... because the rules were changed expressly for his benefit which is even worse, because now "not only did I violate the rules, they actually changed the rules for me"... The lesson being don't worry Josh you can continue to be an irresponsible punk and do whatever the #### you want because you are untouchable...
Click to expand...
well, actually, it seems they changed the rules after wes welker got in trouble. id say gordon is just "collateral damage" in the effort to keep the white guy on the field.
Click to expand...
BINGO!!! The NFL's golden boy dropped the ball and all of a sudden they need to reform. Also, I don't play this game to play politics, I play for the payday at the end. Gordon rides the pine till otherwise told different.

 
Bazinga! said:
Proust Loves Cake said:
GoBirds said:
Odds of reduced suspension?
Click to expand...
Less than winning the lottery. While still better than a non-zero chance, it's still awfully, terribly, ridiculously low.

I really don't understand the disproportionate speculation that he might get reinstated, except that it is based on hope. Hope is a nice thing and all, but it often clouds basic logic, reason, and common sense. The league is absolutely not going to put forward a proposal that opens itself up to legal challenges by others who have been negatively affected by rules they violated when in effect, but were later changed. This is a can of worms, a Pandora's Box, and every other cliche you can conjure up, that the owners simply won't ever agree to. And, the players obviously are not going to hinge the agreement on one or two guys, particularly a recidivist drug user and an aging, soon-to-be irrelevant slot receiver.

Bottom line, these guys violated rules that were in place, and the players' union isn't going to move mountains to get these guys cleared. The owners clearly have every motivation to avoid that, as well.

Gordon will serve his suspension, as he should, as he violated the rules as they were written when he chose for the umpteenth time to put himself above the rules. And, Welker is an idiot and will serve his time, as well.

Anything else is grasping at a small time lottery ticket to barely increase the chances of winning a small time fantasy league. Forgive me, but I fundamentally haven't understood Gordon Owner Logic at any point in this thread.
Click to expand...
Exactly!!

I have been away for a week and it is almost like the illogical Gordon owners have multiplied. Did Soulfly and Ojaay have babies?

No matter how much you all want to twist the logic to fit your hopes, Gordon got suspended, is suspended and will remain suspended......and I will laugh at you all again and then I will be suspended again :cry:
Click to expand...
man, i wish some of the guys on this forum were gamblers.

 
georg013 said:
Based upon a late proposal the NFL sent to the players Tuesday that included unacceptable protocol in the areas of neutral arbitration and HGH testing, the NFL Players Association's 32 player representatives decided to table a scheduled vote on an overhauled drug policy that has had the two parties engaged in intensive talks over the past two weeks, according to player sources.

The NFLPA was expecting to take a vote that would have revised policy and allowed for the immediate reinstatement of almost 20 players currently under suspension, including star receivers Josh Gordon of the Cleveland Browns and Wes Welker of the Denver Broncos, as well as cornerback Orlando Scandrick of the Dallas Cowboys, sources said.

A vote on Wednesday has not been ruled out, a person directly involved in the discussions told ESPN. The source also said that the suspended players who would be reinstated believe they will soon return to the field.

Even while scheduling a vote and holding conference calls during the day, the NFLPA and NFL were hoping to close gaps that would conclude negotiations. The player reps agreed the latest proposal was not worthy of a vote that would require 17 yes votes to be enacted.

The league would not give a green light on allowing a player to challenge a positive HGH test on the basis of flawed science, an appeal that would go to arbitration for a ruling, per sources.

On HGH testing, the league and union also could not come to complete agreement on non-positive tests related to law enforcement cases in which a player purchases the drug. The league balked at allowing those players to appeal to an arbitration panel on the basis of whether their due process was not recognized; a successful appeal on that basis would have gone to a a binding ruling from a neutral arbitrator.

The reinstatement of players such as Gordon, Welker and Scandrick would be based on the fact that none of those players would have been suspended under the new policy. That was not a major hurdle, sources said.

It is unclear whether the NFLPA will continue negotiations or table them for the year. It is possible the union could set a deadline by next Tuesday to reach an agreement, a source said.

ESPN NFL reporter Ed Werder contributed to this report.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11497297/nflpa-vote-revising-drug-policy-tabled
Click to expand...
I thought they were close.......this does not sound close at all. In fact it sounds just like the reason the Steelers players voted against the CBA, Roger Goodell wants to be Judge, jury, and executioner.

The Ray Rice fiasco shows why that is an exceptionally bad policy.

 
I thought the appeals process related to HGH testing was the reason there wasn't agreement on this for a few years now. It's always been the hang-up.

Player do not want Goodell to be the one to hear the appeals on his own decisions and I agree with them.

I'm curious what's changed that allowed this to get this far this time. Maybe nothing 'cause it sounds like the appeals process is the major sticking point again. If it is, this thing is not getting done.

I have Gordon and want him to play this year, but after reading what some of the issues are, I'll be extremely surprised if anything gets done anytime soon. I'll keep him in my bench,with no expectations for the time being.

 
Roger: "ok, let me be the judge, jury, & executioner."

NFLPA: "No."

Roger: "ok, let me be the judge, jury, & executioner."

NFLPA: "No."

Roger: "ok, let me be the judge, jury, & executioner."

NFLPA: "No."

Roger: "ok, but how bout this though... Let me be the judge, jury, & executioner."

NFLPA: "No."

Roger: "ok, let me be the judge, jury, & executioner."

NFLPA: "No."

Roger: "I promise I will be fair... Just look at my track record."

(Silence... Then crickets)

Roger: "what if I let Wes Welker back into the league?"

NFLPA: (thinking......) "hmmmm..."

Roger: (interrupts) "ok, let me be the judge, jury, & executioner."

NFLPA: "No."

 
Not sure why the NFL is fighting for the commissioner to hold this much power - let him impose punishment, and then have a 3-person, binding, appeals board - 1 owner appointed, 1 player appointed, and 1 appointed but the other two appointees.

From the NFL's perspective - not sure I understand why they care this much about HGH (or steroids). I am sure ultimately it comes down to future liability related to allowing players use these substances to the detriment of themselves or other players. So, the NFL should still be covered if the commissioner suspends, and the arbitration panel over-rules.

 
GoodLloydHaveMercy said:
BassNBrew said:
GoodLloydHaveMercy said:
Listen Ditka Butkus I am totally in agreement that the lack of personal responsibility and lack of personal accountability in this country is a serious serious problem and in all honesty I believe it is a problem that is destroying our country from within and causing a divide among the different classes of people

All of that is true IMHO and I see it with my clients everyday in the financial services field

But... This is about fantasy football... Gordon Is a lotto ticket that has a chance to pay off big... I root for the best players to entertain as long as those players aren't complete jerks like Hardy or Rice or Suggs or Big Ben... I feel like crimes of weed pale in comparison to things they've been tied to

Hard to separate at times the love of a game from the animals that play it
Click to expand...
Cool with his DUI then?
Click to expand...
Nope he is truly an idiot and I think DUI is pretty awful as well... Frankly there is no excuse for anyone (especially athletes in the NFL) to drink and get behind the wheel... Again not the same degree of consequences because no victim in this event (this time)

Josh Brent from the cowboys DUI cost his friend his life... Josh Gordon's DUI did not cost someone their life... Same stupid decision but clearly different consequences this time around

Ray Rice smacked around his girlfriend on camera... Pacman Jones slammed a strippers face onto the stage... Greg Hardy (allegedly) choked his girl... Terrell Suggs bleached his gf... I can go on and on... How many more incidents will we never hear anything about? How many times does an NFL player drive under the influence without getting caught? Does that make the decision to drive okay because they didn't get caught? How many times has someone been pushed to the edge by their spouse or gf and NEARLY struck them? A lot of bad decisions are influenced greatly by the situations these players put themselves into...

Bottom line is this... In the degree of bad decisions I believe his love of weed is pretty low on the scale compared to his decision to drive under the influence (regardless of how much alcohol he had in his system)

I believe even if he skates here he will trip up again or already has and will get suspended... But until then I hope that I can enjoy watching him on the field
Click to expand...
After the Rice deal, is the league and the NFLPA going to be excited to get MADD upset?

 
So the lawyers for the NFLPA negotiate an agreement and the player reps said it wasn't even worth voting on? Sounds like the players need to vote some new leaders into power.

 
Breer says the vote could be pushed way back to 2015. Breer also states "There would be reassessment of penalties already levied on players for drug violations during the 2014 league year".

Greg Rosenthal adds: "Bigger takeaway: New policy would reassess suspensions for drug violations during the 2014 league year. Gordon was 2013." https://twitter.com/greggrosenthal

Here's the full Breer report from

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000392376/article/nfl-player-reps-table-vote-on-new-drug-policy

NFL player reps table vote on new drug policy

  • By Albert Breer and Ian Rapoport NFL.com
  • Published: Sept. 10, 2014 at 12:32 a.m.
  • Updated: Sept. 10, 2014 at 01:03 a.m.

The NFL Players Association conducted a conference call with its 32 player reps Tuesday night after receiving a drug-policy proposal from the NFL, and it ended without a vote.

According to union sources, players had issues with the league's proposal that were significant enough to table the vote for another day.

The league and union met face-to-face in New York City on Monday. After more early communication Tuesday, the NFLPA contingent left for Washington just before lunch to wait for the proposal, which came shortly before the 9 p.m. ET call.


The sticking points after the call weren't made completely clear, but issues over whether players will be punished upon DUI arrests (rather than convictions), and the appeals process on human growth hormone testing have persisted. The league would like to start HGH testing immediately. That would mean there wouldn't be a population study, and approval there might hinge on players' ability to challenge the science of the tests on appeal.

Though all aspects of the negotiation are fluid, there has been basic agreement in other areas:

1) There would be reform in marijuana testing. The threshold for the A sample is expected to be raised from 15ng/ml to match normal workplace standards in other businesses. Also, the first suspension for marijuana would be two games, rather than four.

2) Offseason violations for amphetamines would move from the policy on performance enhancing drugs to substances of abuse.

3) There would be reassessment of penalties already levied on players for drug violations during the 2014 league year.

It is possible, but not certain, that a vote could be taken on Wednesday. It's also possible the negotiations are tabled until 2015.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BassNBrew said:
So the lawyers for the NFLPA negotiate an agreement and the player reps said it wasn't even worth voting on? Sounds like the players need to vote some new leaders into power.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's exactly what happened.

The NFL sent the NFLPA a proposal of what they'd be willing to do; I don't know that NFLPA lawyers said "our guys will take this offer."

The NFLPA, when they got the proposal, said, "this sucks, we aren't even voting on it."

Obviously I'm theorizing about what the NFLPA said/thought.

 
Bayhawks said:
BassNBrew said:
So the lawyers for the NFLPA negotiate an agreement and the player reps said it wasn't even worth voting on? Sounds like the players need to vote some new leaders into power.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's exactly what happened.

The NFL sent the NFLPA a proposal of what they'd be willing to do; I don't know that NFLPA lawyers said "our guys will take this offer."

The NFLPA, when they got the proposal, said, "this sucks, we aren't even voting on it."

Obviously I'm theorizing about what the NFLPA said/thought.
Click to expand...
Looks like you are correct. pretty screwed up way of doing things.

 
Dr. Octopus said:
Jerry Curl said:
solorca said:
Given the new information about players suing, I think the ship has about sailed when it comes to him returning immediately. Maybe the suspension will be reduced down, but I even doubt that.

I'm holding in redraft until I hear more, but I really don't see any way he's getting back on the field anytime soon.
Click to expand...
Even thought they cant since it would be an agreed upon contract by them?
Click to expand...
Wouldn't those players be part of the NFLPA?
Click to expand...
Yes they would, which means if they sued, they would sue against a decisions people they voted in charge of making their decisions has made for them with the vote.

 
3) There would be reassessment of penalties already levied on players for drug violations during the 2014 league year.
Click to expand...
That's actually worded in a way that could go both ways. Seems almost deliberately so, considering how much attention has been paid by their media brethren to the impact specifically to my fanta...er, Josh Gordon.

And nothing new here, but just as a refresher for some:

One source said Gordon received a letter in early winter from a league physician stating he had failed a test. A second letter, informing Gordon that he faced a 16-game suspension but had the right to appeal, was sent in late April.
Click to expand...
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10908822/josh-gordon-cleveland-browns-faces-season-long-suspension

 
Henry Ford said:
"For drug violations during the 2014 league year" doesn't include Gordon.
Click to expand...
Just a couple thoughts - maybe we should read that consistently with what has already been reported, ie the ~3/11/14 date, and also "levied on players for drug violations during the 2014 league year" could be read as "levied on players for drug violations during the 2014 league year."

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Henry Ford said:
"For drug violations during the 2014 league year" doesn't include Gordon.
Click to expand...
Just a couple thoughts - maybe we should read that consistently with what has already been reported, ie the ~3/11/14 date, and also "levied on players for drug violations during the 2014 league year" could be read as "levied on players for drug violations during the 2014 league year."
Click to expand...
The problem is that so many different things are being reported, it's hard to get a take on what is accurate & what isn't.

The "sources" that these reporters are using seem to be contradicting each other every day (and sometimes multiple times in a day).

 
Phenomena said:
Huh?

The NFL gave the players a proposal where currently suspended players would no longer be suspended. It's been stated that the currently suspended players was not a major hurdle. The only sticking points right now are the appeals process for HGH testing - NFL wants more control over whether or not players can appeal and to whom.

This is sounding like it is going to happen. I would lean towards betting even money they are all reinstated this week and play this weekend.
Click to expand...
We really don't know that.

 
So to summarize the recent reports and what we know for sure right now is that there could be a vote today or sometime in the year 2015 and that vote may or may not include the reinstatement of Josh Gordon.

 
NJ said:
So to summarize the recent reports and what we know for sure right now is that there could be a vote today or sometime in the year 2015 and that vote may or may not include the reinstatement of Josh Gordon.
Click to expand...
the reinstatement part is pretty much a lock but youre first part is accurate.

 
VaTerp said:
More speculative reports-

"The NFL and NFLPA could not reach an agreement on a proposal partly because the two sides were hung up on punishment for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, Mike Garafolo of Fox Sports 1 reported."

http://www.ohio.com/blogs/cleveland-browns/cleveland-browns-1.270107/nflpa-opts-not-to-vote-tuesday-on-new-drug-policy-that-could-affect-browns-wr-josh-gordon-1.521148
Click to expand...
Speculation, speculation:

Multiple reports say that the 32 reps found too many issues in the revised policy to vote on it. What's more, the NFL got the proposal to the players late in the day, according to Rand Getlin of Yahoo Sports.
Click to expand...
It's just possible it got in too late for everyone to have read and understood it before voting on it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
VaTerp said:
More speculative reports-

"The NFL and NFLPA could not reach an agreement on a proposal partly because the two sides were hung up on punishment for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, Mike Garafolo of Fox Sports 1 reported."

http://www.ohio.com/blogs/cleveland-browns/cleveland-browns-1.270107/nflpa-opts-not-to-vote-tuesday-on-new-drug-policy-that-could-affect-browns-wr-josh-gordon-1.521148
Click to expand...
Speculation, speculation:

Multiple reports say that the 32 reps found too many issues in the revised policy to vote on it. What's more, the NFL got the proposal to the players late in the day, according to Rand Getlin of Yahoo Sports.
Click to expand...
It's just possible it got in too late for everyone to have read and understood it before voting on it.
Click to expand...
It says they found too many issues with the proposal. I take it that some of the stipulations on appeals were non-starters for the NFLPA

 
shadyridr said:
NJ said:
So to summarize the recent reports and what we know for sure right now is that there could be a vote today or sometime in the year 2015 and that vote may or may not include the reinstatement of Josh Gordon.
Click to expand...
the reinstatement part is pretty much a lock but youre first part is accurate.
Click to expand...
Not really. It wasn't included in the proposal the NFL sent, and although it's been speculated that it's inclusion "won't be a problem," there is other speculation that says the opposite. I'd say it's as up in the air as anything else.

 
About the appeals issue, it's actually really hard to be judge, jury and executioner. Mistakes can be made. I can understand Goodell's ego and all that but if I was an owner in the league I would be thinking it might be a really good idea to have someone in the league office independently reviewing punishments and penalties (and the evidence underlying them).

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Henry Ford said:
"For drug violations during the 2014 league year" doesn't include Gordon.
Click to expand...
Just a couple thoughts - maybe we should read that consistently with what has already been reported, ie the ~3/11/14 date, and also "levied on players for drug violations during the 2014 league year" could be read as "levied on players for drug violations during the 2014 league year."
Click to expand...
Not to mention, the only other NFL-connected source I've seen address that was La Canfora (no longer with them, but clearly still carrying water):

And sources on both sides of the negotiation also agreed that the idea of “amnesty” for players who are about to begin suspensions, like Wes Welker and Josh Gordon, has always been “very unlikely,” and not something either side is vigorously pursuing.
Click to expand...
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer/jason-la-canfora/24698973/nfl-nflpa-making-progress-but-amnesty-for-suspended-players-very-unlikely

I'm less inclined to buy what league sources are saying at this point than what the PA guys are saying. Seems active suspensions and going forward is a less arbitrary than the first day of the league year if you are going to talk amnesty. The first of the league year means that you could have two people who tested positive weeks apart under the old rules, who would not have under the new rules, both guilty of the same infraction; and one is on the field, drawing paychecks, and back to his career while the #1 receiver in the league last year is selling cars and not drawing a paycheck, in the prime of his career. Obviously, Josh had not smoked much if at all in the weeks leading up to the test, as evidenced by the drop in ng's (nearly non-existent!) in the B-test. The tyrant Goodell needs to stop picking on Josh, who by all accounts is a nice kid who just kinda likes to catch a buzz. #savejosh :football:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seems like this has to get done today for Gordon to have any chance this week...beginning to think it may play out until their week 4 bye, and he returns week 5.

 
Sinn Fein said:
Seems like this has to get done today for Gordon to have any chance this week...beginning to think it may play out until their week 4 bye, and he returns week 5.
Click to expand...
I think they could sort this out Saturday night at midnight, and Gordon would start on Sunday.

 
Bayhawks said:
massraider said:
Sinn Fein said:
Seems like this has to get done today for Gordon to have any chance this week...beginning to think it may play out until their week 4 bye, and he returns week 5.
Click to expand...
I think they could sort this out Saturday night at midnight, and Gordon would start on Sunday.
Click to expand...
No.
Click to expand...
Bayhawks said:
massraider said:
Sinn Fein said:
Seems like this has to get done today for Gordon to have any chance this week...beginning to think it may play out until their week 4 bye, and he returns week 5.
Click to expand...
I think they could sort this out Saturday night at midnight, and Gordon would start on Sunday.
Click to expand...
No.
Click to expand...
Why? If the agreement is that the new drug policy will be applied retroactively, then Gordon's test is below the threshold and hence his suspension should be lifted immediately.

 
Why would the representatives that are in the AFC North agree to reinstatement. Why would the representatives of the AFC west agree to reinstatement. Why would any team that would not have a player reinstated agree to reinstatement as part of the deal?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

greenmountaingoat
Ainias Smith-WR- Draft eligible Texas A&M
Replies
9
Views
317
Drunken Cowboy
D
JohnnyU
WR Trey Palmer, TB
Replies
39
Views
2K
ignatiusjreilly
ignatiusjreilly
creepythinman
True League Winners - Upgrading the Playoff Roster
Replies
25
Views
1K
creepythinman
creepythinman

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 12 (members: 0, guests: 12)
Top