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 (6 Viewers)

From Rotoworld:

The vote among NFLPA reps on a new drug policy is not expected until Friday at the earliest.
Josh Gordon, Wes Welker and other recently suspended players remain in limbo. The union is awaiting a response from the league to its latest recommendations before they actually hold their vote, and the league office is a engulfed with the Ray Rice scandal right now. The two sides appear close on a deal, but there are "issues with language on multiple issues, including commissioner authority in the appeals process." Gordon remains worth stashing in all formats even though this isn't going to get sorted out before Sunday.
 
Bayhawks said:
shadyridr said:
Bayhawks said:
I Am the Stig said:
BassNBrew said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
dschuler said:
This Ray Rice issue can only help Gordon as the NFL dropping the ball gives more leverage to the NFLPA.
Click to expand...
This is what I concluded last night. Rog & the NFL need a "win". - Not just with the public, the waters have been poisoned with the players.
Click to expand...
Still confused here. Reinstating a guy busted for duo is going to resonate well with the public?
Click to expand...
It is more about the tolerance level of the test. I had no idea, until now, how much lower it is than even for the Olympics. Also, considering the decriminalization the NFL might as well be shouting "Get off my lawn!!!"
Click to expand...
People who aren't personally interested in this (ffer's, hard core NFL fans, etc) aren't going to care if the NFL threshold is much lower than the Olympics. From a publicity standpoint, the general public is going to see the NFL allowing players who WERE suspended for drug use allowed back before their suspensions are up. IMO, most of the general public won't care about this, but they definitely aren't going to go "well the NFL is completely ###-backwards with regards to important issues like domestic abuse, but at least they understand that players should be able to smoke a little bit of weed, and use amphetamines in the off-season, so I guess I'm satisfied."

That's just an absurd conclusion to try to draw, and just another example of Gordon-ites going to ridiculous lengths to try to find substance to their belief that Gordon will be allowed to play in 2014.

If this policy gets changed, and if the new policy is applied retroactively, it's not b/c the NFL wants Gordon back on the field, and it's not because the NFL needs a public image "win;" it's because they wanted to get the HGH testing in, and lifting the suspensions was one of the concessions they had to make.
Click to expand...
the win is hgh testing
Click to expand...
As already stated, that's not a "publicity" win.

The general public doesn't care if NFL players are tested for HGH.

The general public isn't going to say "the NFL is weak on domestic abuse, but they are getting tough on HGH, so it's all good."

HGH testing isn't going to counter-act the negative publicity of the Rice situation.
Click to expand...
I disagree.

It impacts the integrity of the sport and the history. It may cause parents to tell their kids to play Soccer instead.

There is pressure from Congress nto clean up the sport

 
Bayhawks said:
meanjoegreen said:
Sinn Fein said:
I agree - the whole Ray Rice scenario has consumed the audience's attention, and nothing will be gained, from a PR perspective, to getting this deal done.

I now am beginning to think the only way this gets done, is if the players get significant concessions from the owners on the testing/punishment issue. The owners, would probably be best served to table discussions until a time when they, and the commissioner's office, are less vulnerable, and less distracted than they are right now. Doing any kind of deal right now seems like bad business.
Click to expand...
Potential changes aren't being made for the audience. A scandal shouldn't keep an organization from conducting business.
Click to expand...
The point is that recently, a number of posters (most seem to be Gordon owners) are suggesting that the NFL NEED to get this deal done, as a publicity "WIN" to counteract the negative pub they've gotten recently with the Rice situation. They're using this as support for their belief that the NFL will give in to the NFLPA and allow suspended players to have their suspension lifted under a new policy.The fact is that a new drug policy isn't going to counter-act the bad press they've gotten from the Rice situation, so that's just a ridiculous argument.

The two sides don't seem like they are agreeing on the key issues, and the belief that the NFL will cave for some "good press" doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...
I think you are overstating people's belief that letting Gordon off the hook will mean good press. It won't move the needle on national media coverage because only Cleveland fans and FF players care. And since Gordon is only owned in 65% of Yahoo leagues, not that many Fantasy players care either.

 
FlapJacks said:
Bayhawks said:
shadyridr said:
Bayhawks said:
I Am the Stig said:
BassNBrew said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
dschuler said:
This Ray Rice issue can only help Gordon as the NFL dropping the ball gives more leverage to the NFLPA.
Click to expand...
This is what I concluded last night. Rog & the NFL need a "win". - Not just with the public, the waters have been poisoned with the players.
Click to expand...
Still confused here. Reinstating a guy busted for duo is going to resonate well with the public?
Click to expand...
It is more about the tolerance level of the test. I had no idea, until now, how much lower it is than even for the Olympics. Also, considering the decriminalization the NFL might as well be shouting "Get off my lawn!!!"
Click to expand...
People who aren't personally interested in this (ffer's, hard core NFL fans, etc) aren't going to care if the NFL threshold is much lower than the Olympics. From a publicity standpoint, the general public is going to see the NFL allowing players who WERE suspended for drug use allowed back before their suspensions are up. IMO, most of the general public won't care about this, but they definitely aren't going to go "well the NFL is completely ###-backwards with regards to important issues like domestic abuse, but at least they understand that players should be able to smoke a little bit of weed, and use amphetamines in the off-season, so I guess I'm satisfied."

That's just an absurd conclusion to try to draw, and just another example of Gordon-ites going to ridiculous lengths to try to find substance to their belief that Gordon will be allowed to play in 2014.

If this policy gets changed, and if the new policy is applied retroactively, it's not b/c the NFL wants Gordon back on the field, and it's not because the NFL needs a public image "win;" it's because they wanted to get the HGH testing in, and lifting the suspensions was one of the concessions they had to make.
Click to expand...
the win is hgh testing
Click to expand...
As already stated, that's not a "publicity" win.

The general public doesn't care if NFL players are tested for HGH.

The general public isn't going to say "the NFL is weak on domestic abuse, but they are getting tough on HGH, so it's all good."

HGH testing isn't going to counter-act the negative publicity of the Rice situation.
Click to expand...
I disagree.

It impacts the integrity of the sport and the history. It may cause parents to tell their kids to play Soccer instead.

There is pressure from Congress nto clean up the sport
Click to expand...
The reason the league wants HGH testing is because they need to legally protect themselves in teh future. If there are side effects from using HGH, and players try to sue the league, the league can say "we knew it was bad, we tried to keep you from using it."

Yes, Congress wants the sport cleaned up, they are hardly a large percentage of the "general public."

If parents have their kids play soccer, it will be b/c of the danger of football, not because they are worried that their young son is going to be taking HGH.

On a public relations level, implementing a new HGH policy will do NOTHING to counteract the negative backlash the league is receiving over the way they handled the Rice situation. Believing otherwise is just naive.

 
If they really wanted a quick win publicity-wise they'd fire Goodell. As was mentioned, the deal they are working on started with the last CBA and has NOTHING to do with players getting their suspensions lifted to satisfy fantasy football players.

 
Bayhawks said:
FlapJacks said:
Bayhawks said:
shadyridr said:
Bayhawks said:
I Am the Stig said:
BassNBrew said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
dschuler said:
This Ray Rice issue can only help Gordon as the NFL dropping the ball gives more leverage to the NFLPA.
Click to expand...
This is what I concluded last night. Rog & the NFL need a "win". - Not just with the public, the waters have been poisoned with the players.
Click to expand...
Still confused here. Reinstating a guy busted for duo is going to resonate well with the public?
Click to expand...
It is more about the tolerance level of the test. I had no idea, until now, how much lower it is than even for the Olympics. Also, considering the decriminalization the NFL might as well be shouting "Get off my lawn!!!"
Click to expand...
People who aren't personally interested in this (ffer's, hard core NFL fans, etc) aren't going to care if the NFL threshold is much lower than the Olympics. From a publicity standpoint, the general public is going to see the NFL allowing players who WERE suspended for drug use allowed back before their suspensions are up. IMO, most of the general public won't care about this, but they definitely aren't going to go "well the NFL is completely ###-backwards with regards to important issues like domestic abuse, but at least they understand that players should be able to smoke a little bit of weed, and use amphetamines in the off-season, so I guess I'm satisfied."

That's just an absurd conclusion to try to draw, and just another example of Gordon-ites going to ridiculous lengths to try to find substance to their belief that Gordon will be allowed to play in 2014.

If this policy gets changed, and if the new policy is applied retroactively, it's not b/c the NFL wants Gordon back on the field, and it's not because the NFL needs a public image "win;" it's because they wanted to get the HGH testing in, and lifting the suspensions was one of the concessions they had to make.
Click to expand...
the win is hgh testing
Click to expand...
As already stated, that's not a "publicity" win.

The general public doesn't care if NFL players are tested for HGH.

The general public isn't going to say "the NFL is weak on domestic abuse, but they are getting tough on HGH, so it's all good."

HGH testing isn't going to counter-act the negative publicity of the Rice situation.
Click to expand...
I disagree.

It impacts the integrity of the sport and the history. It may cause parents to tell their kids to play Soccer instead.

There is pressure from Congress nto clean up the sport
Click to expand...
The reason the league wants HGH testing is because they need to legally protect themselves in teh future. If there are side effects from using HGH, and players try to sue the league, the league can say "we knew it was bad, we tried to keep you from using it."

Yes, Congress wants the sport cleaned up, they are hardly a large percentage of the "general public."

If parents have their kids play soccer, it will be b/c of the danger of football, not because they are worried that their young son is going to be taking HGH.

On a public relations level, implementing a new HGH policy will do NOTHING to counteract the negative backlash the league is receiving over the way they handled the Rice situation. Believing otherwise is just naive.
Click to expand...
Congress are the representatives of the people

HGH is just one more danger to add to playing football over soccer

The public complained about the integrity of baseball and roid use

Lance Armstrong's doping was a major scandal

The idea of the athlete-hero is still alive andwidespraed HGH hurts that marketing angle

yes they want to shield themselves from lawsuits, but the other PR angle is real

 
I Am the Stig said:
BassNBrew said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
dschuler said:
This Ray Rice issue can only help Gordon as the NFL dropping the ball gives more leverage to the NFLPA.
Click to expand...
This is what I concluded last night. Rog & the NFL need a "win". - Not just with the public, the waters have been poisoned with the players.
Click to expand...
Still confused here. Reinstating a guy busted for duo is going to resonate well with the public?
Click to expand...
It is more about the tolerance level of the test. I had no idea, until now, how much lower it is than even for the Olympics. Also, considering the decriminalization the NFL might as well be shouting "Get off my lawn!!!"
Click to expand...
This is the original post I responded to, and it isn't the first one in this thread.

The belief that this policy (if enacted) does anything to change the public perception of the NFL is ludicrous, therefore arguing the NFL "NEEDS" this policy as a publicity "WIN" is ludicrous.

Again, IF they agree to a new policy, it will be because it's what they wanted, not because they want good publicity.

 
FlapJacks said:
Bayhawks said:
FlapJacks said:
Bayhawks said:
shadyridr said:
Bayhawks said:
I Am the Stig said:
BassNBrew said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
dschuler said:
This Ray Rice issue can only help Gordon as the NFL dropping the ball gives more leverage to the NFLPA.
Click to expand...
This is what I concluded last night. Rog & the NFL need a "win". - Not just with the public, the waters have been poisoned with the players.
Click to expand...
Still confused here. Reinstating a guy busted for duo is going to resonate well with the public?
Click to expand...
It is more about the tolerance level of the test. I had no idea, until now, how much lower it is than even for the Olympics. Also, considering the decriminalization the NFL might as well be shouting "Get off my lawn!!!"
Click to expand...
People who aren't personally interested in this (ffer's, hard core NFL fans, etc) aren't going to care if the NFL threshold is much lower than the Olympics. From a publicity standpoint, the general public is going to see the NFL allowing players who WERE suspended for drug use allowed back before their suspensions are up. IMO, most of the general public won't care about this, but they definitely aren't going to go "well the NFL is completely ###-backwards with regards to important issues like domestic abuse, but at least they understand that players should be able to smoke a little bit of weed, and use amphetamines in the off-season, so I guess I'm satisfied."

That's just an absurd conclusion to try to draw, and just another example of Gordon-ites going to ridiculous lengths to try to find substance to their belief that Gordon will be allowed to play in 2014.

If this policy gets changed, and if the new policy is applied retroactively, it's not b/c the NFL wants Gordon back on the field, and it's not because the NFL needs a public image "win;" it's because they wanted to get the HGH testing in, and lifting the suspensions was one of the concessions they had to make.
Click to expand...
the win is hgh testing
Click to expand...
As already stated, that's not a "publicity" win.

The general public doesn't care if NFL players are tested for HGH.

The general public isn't going to say "the NFL is weak on domestic abuse, but they are getting tough on HGH, so it's all good."

HGH testing isn't going to counter-act the negative publicity of the Rice situation.
Click to expand...
I disagree.

It impacts the integrity of the sport and the history. It may cause parents to tell their kids to play Soccer instead.

There is pressure from Congress nto clean up the sport
Click to expand...
The reason the league wants HGH testing is because they need to legally protect themselves in teh future. If there are side effects from using HGH, and players try to sue the league, the league can say "we knew it was bad, we tried to keep you from using it."

Yes, Congress wants the sport cleaned up, they are hardly a large percentage of the "general public."

If parents have their kids play soccer, it will be b/c of the danger of football, not because they are worried that their young son is going to be taking HGH.

On a public relations level, implementing a new HGH policy will do NOTHING to counteract the negative backlash the league is receiving over the way they handled the Rice situation. Believing otherwise is just naive.
Click to expand...
Congress are the representatives of the people

HGH is just one more danger to add to playing football over soccer

The public complained about the integrity of baseball and roid use

Lance Armstrong's doping was a major scandal

The idea of the athlete-hero is still alive andwidespraed HGH hurts that marketing angle

yes they want to shield themselves from lawsuits, but the other PR angle is real
Click to expand...
No, it isn't.

Weed/amphetamines/HGH don't outweigh domestic abuse as "bad stuff," so a new weed/amphetamines/HGH policy won't reduce the negative press the NFL will receive/has received over the Rice situation.

 
NFLPA reps not expected to vote on revised drug policy before FridayNo vote among NFL Players Association representatives on a new drug policy proposal is expected until at least Friday as the union waits for a response from the league to its latest recommendations, a person with knowledge of the negotiations told USA TODAY Sports on Wednesday night.

That response hadn't come by 7 p.m. ET Wednesday — probably too late to review it and schedule a call with the board — and a vote is unlikely Thursday because two teams have a game, said the person, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly.

The latest delay leaves the status unchanged for numerous suspended players, including Denver Broncos receiver Wes Welker and Cleveland Browns receiver Josh Gordon, who could have their cases reviewed under terms of the new policy as time runs short for them to play in Week 2.

Fallout from the Ray Rice situation surely isn't expediting things on the league side as NFL officials determine how to respond to the latest round of criticism and a report from the Associated Press claiming a league executive received a copy of the now infamous video five months ago.

The sides met for several hours Monday in New York, and union officials — including NFLPA president Eric Winston and executive committee member Brian Waters — presented the parameters of what players would accept on several outstanding issues.

The hope was that'd yield a league proposal worthy of a vote on a conference call Tuesday night. But there were issues with language on multiple issues, including commissioner authority in the appeals process, so the NFLPA's lawyers made edits and sent it back to the league Wednesday.

The sides have closed the gap on multiple key issues, the person said. That includes the NFL ending its push to discipline league personnel upon a DUI arrest before the legal process plays out. The sides also agree on reconsidering suspensions for players disciplined since March 11 based on new standards. But until the deal is done, nothing is truly final.

A new drug policy that includes blood testing for human growth hormone has been on hold since the collective bargaining agreement was signed in August 2011, with a provision that such a policy would be agreed upon within weeks.
Click to expand...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2014/09/10/nflpa-union-drug-policy-vote-delayed/15418593/

 
fourd said:
If they really wanted a quick win publicity-wise they'd fire Goodell. As was mentioned, the deal they are working on started with the last CBA and has NOTHING to do with players getting their suspensions lifted to satisfy fantasy football players.
Click to expand...
This is a very good point; the bad press is b/c of how the league/Goodell handled the Rice issue. Firing him would mitigate that bad press MUCH more than a new drug policy would.

 
Bayhawks said:
fourd said:
If they really wanted a quick win publicity-wise they'd fire Goodell. As was mentioned, the deal they are working on started with the last CBA and has NOTHING to do with players getting their suspensions lifted to satisfy fantasy football players.
Click to expand...
This is a very good point; the bad press is b/c of how the league/Goodell handled the Rice issue. Firing him would mitigate that bad press MUCH more than a new drug policy would.
Click to expand...
IMO they are not going to fire Goodell. They have already launched an investigation to find out who had the tape "hiding under their desk." They will find a scapegoat and fire that person or conclude that it was an honest mistake.

Regardless, also IMO, the drug testing agreement is more important to the NFL than Ray Rice and Goodell combined. They have a reputation of a league that is full of players that use drugs that cause long term damage for short term physical gains. That needs to be eliminated. Firing Goodell does not fix this. In 3 years the general public will not remember Ray Rice.

 
Bayhawks,

It is sounding like you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. It is not that a deal is hugely positive news or that it will outweigh the Rice scandel. It is just different news that definitely isn't negative. People are distracted very easily. Squirrel!!

 
If Congress is going to hammer Goodell right now they could also hit the drug policy. It's something they've done before and a major liability for the shield if they don't have a comprehensive testing policy in place. On the other hand, showing that they put tougher domestic violence rules on place recently, and also put tougher hgh testing in place, would help them make their case that they're trying to be tougher and working with the union in this. So this may be a big win for the league if they can get this deal done sooner rather than later.

 
There are 20 players currently suspended in the NFL. 6 of them are suspended for more than 4 games: Gordon, Will Hill (6 games), Fred Davis (indefinite), Daryl Washington (1 year), Aldon Smith (9 games), and Justin Blackmon (indefinite).

Since no suspensions will be lifted prior to week 2 (no vote until Friday, if then; and week 2 games start tonight), IF this deal doesn't get done before week 4, it will only (possibly) impact Gordon, Hill, Davis, Blackmon, Smith & Washington. I don't see a new policy impacting Smith, since his suspension was under both the substance abuse policy (alcohol, I think) AND the personal conduct policy, and I don't think Blackmon will be impacted, b/c I believe his suspension is due to alcohol issues. Fred Davis says his most recent failed test was due to taking a supplement that had a banned substance, so it seems like a new policy wouldn't impact him.

So, essentially we are looking at Gordon, Will Hill and Daryl Washington getting out of their suspensions, possibly. Can anyone give some details about why Hill and Washington were suspended?

 
skinsrule05 said:
Bayhawks,

It is sounding like you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. It is not that a deal is hugely positive news or that it will outweigh the Rice scandel. It is just different news that definitely isn't negative. People are distracted very easily. Squirrel!!
Click to expand...
Huh?

I'm just pointing out that people in this thread who think the NFL "NEEDS" this policy for a publicity "WIN" are grasping at straws. I've said several times, IF a policy gets done, it's because the NFL wants it, not because they "NEED" a "WIN."

 
MIMN said:
Bayhawks said:
fourd said:
If they really wanted a quick win publicity-wise they'd fire Goodell. As was mentioned, the deal they are working on started with the last CBA and has NOTHING to do with players getting their suspensions lifted to satisfy fantasy football players.
Click to expand...
This is a very good point; the bad press is b/c of how the league/Goodell handled the Rice issue. Firing him would mitigate that bad press MUCH more than a new drug policy would.
Click to expand...
IMO they are not going to fire Goodell. They have already launched an investigation to find out who had the tape "hiding under their desk." They will find a scapegoat and fire that person or conclude that it was an honest mistake.

Regardless, also IMO, the drug testing agreement is more important to the NFL than Ray Rice and Goodell combined. They have a reputation of a league that is full of players that use drugs that cause long term damage for short term physical gains. That needs to be eliminated. Firing Goodell does not fix this. In 3 years the general public will not remember Ray Rice.
Click to expand...
And if you believe this, which I probably do, then getting that agreement right is the most important part. So finishing it now to somehow deflect from the Ray Rice/domestic abuse issues would be irrelevant. Also, at this point is HGH really that big of a deal? No one knows how many players are using it since they don't test for it. Until testing starts this isn't all that big as far as a public issue that has people glued to the edge of their seats. Does anyone here really thing the Ray Rice story will be going away because they signed a new testing agreement? Maybe after they test and find out 80% of the league is positive it becomes bigger.

When the news leads with the latest on Ray Rice over the President talking about how to deal with ISIS a new drug agreement isn't changing anything soon.

 
bostonfred said:
If Congress is going to hammer Goodell right now they could also hit the drug policy. It's something they've done before and a major liability for the shield if they don't have a comprehensive testing policy in place. On the other hand, showing that they put tougher domestic violence rules on place recently, and also put tougher hgh testing in place, would help them make their case that they're trying to be tougher and working with the union in this. So this may be a big win for the league if they can get this deal done sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...
In the eyes of Congress, sure, but it's not going to impact the negative perception that the general public has of the NFL right now, due to the Rice situation.

 
MIMN said:
Bayhawks said:
fourd said:
If they really wanted a quick win publicity-wise they'd fire Goodell. As was mentioned, the deal they are working on started with the last CBA and has NOTHING to do with players getting their suspensions lifted to satisfy fantasy football players.
Click to expand...
This is a very good point; the bad press is b/c of how the league/Goodell handled the Rice issue. Firing him would mitigate that bad press MUCH more than a new drug policy would.
Click to expand...
IMO they are not going to fire Goodell. They have already launched an investigation to find out who had the tape "hiding under their desk." They will find a scapegoat and fire that person or conclude that it was an honest mistake.

Regardless, also IMO, the drug testing agreement is more important to the NFL than Ray Rice and Goodell combined. They have a reputation of a league that is full of players that use drugs that cause long term damage for short term physical gains. That needs to be eliminated. Firing Goodell does not fix this. In 3 years the general public will not remember Ray Rice.
Click to expand...
Not so sure about this...the situation has to play out based on the findings of the independent investigator. What he uncovers will go a long way to determining Goodell's fate.

 
fourd said:
MIMN said:
Bayhawks said:
fourd said:
If they really wanted a quick win publicity-wise they'd fire Goodell. As was mentioned, the deal they are working on started with the last CBA and has NOTHING to do with players getting their suspensions lifted to satisfy fantasy football players.
Click to expand...
This is a very good point; the bad press is b/c of how the league/Goodell handled the Rice issue. Firing him would mitigate that bad press MUCH more than a new drug policy would.
Click to expand...
IMO they are not going to fire Goodell. They have already launched an investigation to find out who had the tape "hiding under their desk." They will find a scapegoat and fire that person or conclude that it was an honest mistake.

Regardless, also IMO, the drug testing agreement is more important to the NFL than Ray Rice and Goodell combined. They have a reputation of a league that is full of players that use drugs that cause long term damage for short term physical gains. That needs to be eliminated. Firing Goodell does not fix this. In 3 years the general public will not remember Ray Rice.
Click to expand...
And if you believe this, which I probably do, then getting that agreement right is the most important part. So finishing it now to somehow deflect from the Ray Rice/domestic abuse issues would be irrelevant. Also, at this point is HGH really that big of a deal? No one knows how many players are using it since they don't test for it. Until testing starts this isn't all that big as far as a public issue that has people glued to the edge of their seats. Does anyone here really thing the Ray Rice story will be going away because they signed a new testing agreement? Maybe after they test and find out 80% of the league is positive it becomes bigger.

When the news leads with the latest on Ray Rice over the President talking about how to deal with ISIS a new drug agreement isn't changing anything soon.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

 
Seeing as lawyers are billing a #### ton of hours on both sides there is no way this gets resolved quickly.

I'll be happy if they figure it out by week 4.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bayhawks said:
skinsrule05 said:
Bayhawks,

It is sounding like you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. It is not that a deal is hugely positive news or that it will outweigh the Rice scandel. It is just different news that definitely isn't negative. People are distracted very easily. Squirrel!!
Click to expand...
Huh?I'm just pointing out that people in this thread who think the NFL "NEEDS" this policy for a publicity "WIN" are grasping at straws. I've said several times, IF a policy gets done, it's because the NFL wants it, not because they "NEED" a "WIN."
Click to expand...
Two guys saying this does not the everyone make.

The two issues are not even in the same universe.

 
I Am the Stig said:
Bayhawks said:
skinsrule05 said:
Bayhawks,

It is sounding like you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. It is not that a deal is hugely positive news or that it will outweigh the Rice scandel. It is just different news that definitely isn't negative. People are distracted very easily. Squirrel!!
Click to expand...
Huh?I'm just pointing out that people in this thread who think the NFL "NEEDS" this policy for a publicity "WIN" are grasping at straws. I've said several times, IF a policy gets done, it's because the NFL wants it, not because they "NEED" a "WIN."
Click to expand...
Two guys saying this does not the everyone make.

The two issues are not even in the same universe.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

Goodell is on the hotseat because of TMZ. TMZ smells blood in the water. TMZ does not give a #### about HGH testing.

 
I believe the Gordon suspension is ridiculous as is the NFLs stance on pot, but that isn't on Goodell, those were the rules. What is on Goodell and the NFL is waiting the entire summer to deal with it, and the terrible optics of giving Rice a 2 game suspension in comparison. Hell, I even thought it was fishy that two teams in the same division had their star players situations treated so differently. I have no idea if Goodell plays favorites, but he's always come across to me as arbitrary when deciding things.

I think his handling of the Rice situation reinforces the notion that he isn't an honest broker, and that is bad for him and the NFL.

Regarding Gordon, I don't see a reversal of his suspension as necessarily being something that helps Goodell and the NFL, in fact it could do just the opposite. The NFL never once disputed the narrative of Gordon as this "drug addict" that was played out in the media. I truly believe that Gordon's failed test was a false positive based on second hand smoke. Maybe I'm wrong, but the levels are crazy low, and the guy gets tested all the time. Weed is also super potent these days, no way he draws that low of a level unless he's smoking ditch weed. But I do believe most casual fans assume Gordon is a crazed drug addict. Reinstatement carries a huge risk in another PR nightmare. Not only do they waffle on domestic violence, but the NFL also waffles on drug users.

This could of all been avoided if Goodell was proactive in coming out earlier criticizing the absurdity of the drug policy. If he believed Gordon wasn't a "drug addict" he could of went to bat for him. Gordon is a legit superstar in the league, who I believe got caught making a bad decision who he hung around with, not his use of drugs. His silence just reinforced that maybe Gordon really is a drug addict. No way a reversal helps Goodell's or the NFL's image, it would be just another example of the NFL bumbling another issue.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm amazed at how long this thread is considering we still have no clue what is going to happen. I suspect no matter what happens, we're gonna have a lot of people in here thumbing their nose saying "I told you so."

It's like a trainwreck. :tfp: :popcorn:

 
I Am the Stig said:
Bayhawks said:
skinsrule05 said:
Bayhawks,

It is sounding like you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. It is not that a deal is hugely positive news or that it will outweigh the Rice scandel. It is just different news that definitely isn't negative. People are distracted very easily. Squirrel!!
Click to expand...
Huh?I'm just pointing out that people in this thread who think the NFL "NEEDS" this policy for a publicity "WIN" are grasping at straws. I've said several times, IF a policy gets done, it's because the NFL wants it, not because they "NEED" a "WIN."
Click to expand...
Two guys saying this does not the everyone make.

The two issues are not even in the same universe.
Click to expand...
Go back through the last dozen or so pages (or more) if you must; it's A LOT more than 2 guys saying this.

 
From PFT:

Goodell said both Panthers defensive end Greg Hardy and 49ers defensive end Ray McDonald would fall under the new domestic violence policy, even though Hardy’s arrest and conviction (which has been appealed to a November jury trial) came before the policy changed.

“It’s very important to make sure we have all the facts and to make sure law enforcement has the opportunity to do what they need to do,” Goodell said of the two cases. “But then we have to make sure whatever action that we should take at the appropriate time, we’re in position to do.”

QUESTION: So if actions in these cases that took place prior to policy revisions on domestic violence would incur the new penalties implemented, why would this not apply to Gordon the other way around?

 
Well I don't care either way. My team is good enough to make the playoffs and I picked up Gordon when I heard he was going to sue so my value for him is at a peak point. If I lose him, I lose nothing and go on my merry way.

 
Bayhawks said:
I Am the Stig said:
Bayhawks said:
skinsrule05 said:
Bayhawks,

It is sounding like you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. It is not that a deal is hugely positive news or that it will outweigh the Rice scandel. It is just different news that definitely isn't negative. People are distracted very easily. Squirrel!!
Click to expand...
Huh?I'm just pointing out that people in this thread who think the NFL "NEEDS" this policy for a publicity "WIN" are grasping at straws. I've said several times, IF a policy gets done, it's because the NFL wants it, not because they "NEED" a "WIN."
Click to expand...
Two guys saying this does not the everyone make.

The two issues are not even in the same universe.
Click to expand...
Go back through the last dozen or so pages (or more) if you must; it's A LOT more than 2 guys saying this.
Click to expand...
That's because this thread is jam-packed with Gordon owners who will see a reason in anything. "Goodell needs a PR win" is this week's version of "the appeal taking this long means Gordon is going to win."

 
:lmao: I can't believe how some of you think. "The NFL needs a win so they are going to reverse the Gordon suspension."

This Rice coverup/story is on the cover of the Daily News and being talked about on every news show. It's the biggest news story of the week and one of the biggest of the year. My wife was asking me about it and I can promise you she doesn't care about the NFL at all. She wouldn't know who Josh Gordon is if he was cheefin in our driveway.

The Gordon/drug thing won't even make a dent. Get real.

 
TheDirtyWord said:
From PFT:

Goodell said both Panthers defensive end Greg Hardy and 49ers defensive end Ray McDonald would fall under the new domestic violence policy, even though Hardy’s arrest and conviction (which has been appealed to a November jury trial) came before the policy changed.

“It’s very important to make sure we have all the facts and to make sure law enforcement has the opportunity to do what they need to do,” Goodell said of the two cases. “But then we have to make sure whatever action that we should take at the appropriate time, we’re in position to do.”

QUESTION: So if actions in these cases that took place prior to policy revisions on domestic violence would incur the new penalties implemented, why would this not apply to Gordon the other way around?
Click to expand...
It won't. If they pass the new policy and if they reinstate players, Gordon will be reinstated.

Gordon failed with a 16 when the threshold was 15. New threshold will be 50. You do the math.

 
If Goodell gets fired can we safely assume this deal will take much longer to get done and Gordon becomes a lot less valuable to hold on to?

 
PatsWillWin said:
Bayhawks said:
I Am the Stig said:
Bayhawks said:
skinsrule05 said:
Bayhawks,

It is sounding like you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. It is not that a deal is hugely positive news or that it will outweigh the Rice scandel. It is just different news that definitely isn't negative. People are distracted very easily. Squirrel!!
Click to expand...
Huh?I'm just pointing out that people in this thread who think the NFL "NEEDS" this policy for a publicity "WIN" are grasping at straws. I've said several times, IF a policy gets done, it's because the NFL wants it, not because they "NEED" a "WIN."
Click to expand...
Two guys saying this does not the everyone make.

The two issues are not even in the same universe.
Click to expand...
Go back through the last dozen or so pages (or more) if you must; it's A LOT more than 2 guys saying this.
Click to expand...
That's because this thread is jam-packed with Gordon owners who will see a reason in anything. "Goodell needs a PR win" is this week's version of "the appeal taking this long means Gordon is going to win."
Click to expand...
I know that.

TheDirtyWord said:
From PFT:

Goodell said both Panthers defensive end Greg Hardy and 49ers defensive end Ray McDonald would fall under the new domestic violence policy, even though Hardy’s arrest and conviction (which has been appealed to a November jury trial) came before the policy changed.

“It’s very important to make sure we have all the facts and to make sure law enforcement has the opportunity to do what they need to do,” Goodell said of the two cases. “But then we have to make sure whatever action that we should take at the appropriate time, we’re in position to do.”

QUESTION: So if actions in these cases that took place prior to policy revisions on domestic violence would incur the new penalties implemented, why would this not apply to Gordon the other way around?
Click to expand...
That's a good question. Although I believe the McDonald arrest took place AFTER the announcement, Hardy's incident was prior to the new policy. I'd imagine if the NFL tried to punish him with the new guidelines, the NFLPA would have to fight it and/or Hardy would have legal grounds to object.

That being said, the old policy allowed Goodell to issue punishments for personal conduct issues as he saw fit, so I suppose he could say that he saw a 6 game suspension as appropriate under the old policy.

 
shoecrew22 said:
If Goodell gets fired can we safely assume this deal will take much longer to get done and Gordon becomes a lot less valuable to hold on to?
Click to expand...
That depends on if he is activated in time for a playoff bound FF team to use him. If you never get to use him he is of now value ever. If you make the playoffs and he puts up a big day on his first week back then it was worth it.

 
dagwood said:
TheDirtyWord said:
From PFT:

Goodell said both Panthers defensive end Greg Hardy and 49ers defensive end Ray McDonald would fall under the new domestic violence policy, even though Hardy’s arrest and conviction (which has been appealed to a November jury trial) came before the policy changed.

“It’s very important to make sure we have all the facts and to make sure law enforcement has the opportunity to do what they need to do,” Goodell said of the two cases. “But then we have to make sure whatever action that we should take at the appropriate time, we’re in position to do.”

QUESTION: So if actions in these cases that took place prior to policy revisions on domestic violence would incur the new penalties implemented, why would this not apply to Gordon the other way around?
Click to expand...
It won't. If they pass the new policy and if they reinstate players, Gordon will be reinstated.

Gordon failed with a 16 when the threshold was 15. New threshold will be 50. You do the math.
Click to expand...
New threshold might be 35 (depending on what report you believe). Also, depending on what report you believe, they are "this close" to a new policy OR are very far apart. Also depending on what report you believe the policy will be applied retroactively, or it won't.

 
I Am the Stig said:
Bayhawks said:
meanjoegreen said:
Sinn Fein said:
I agree - the whole Ray Rice scenario has consumed the audience's attention, and nothing will be gained, from a PR perspective, to getting this deal done.

I now am beginning to think the only way this gets done, is if the players get significant concessions from the owners on the testing/punishment issue. The owners, would probably be best served to table discussions until a time when they, and the commissioner's office, are less vulnerable, and less distracted than they are right now. Doing any kind of deal right now seems like bad business.
Click to expand...
Potential changes aren't being made for the audience. A scandal shouldn't keep an organization from conducting business.
Click to expand...
The point is that recently, a number of posters (most seem to be Gordon owners) are suggesting that the NFL NEED to get this deal done, as a publicity "WIN" to counteract the negative pub they've gotten recently with the Rice situation. They're using this as support for their belief that the NFL will give in to the NFLPA and allow suspended players to have their suspension lifted under a new policy.The fact is that a new drug policy isn't going to counter-act the bad press they've gotten from the Rice situation, so that's just a ridiculous argument.

The two sides don't seem like they are agreeing on the key issues, and the belief that the NFL will cave for some "good press" doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...
I think you are overstating people's belief that letting Gordon off the hook will mean good press. It won't move the needle on national media coverage because only Cleveland fans and FF players care. And since Gordon is only owned in 65% of Yahoo leagues, not that many Fantasy players care either.
Click to expand...
Well, to be fair, a bunch of those yahoo leagues are free leagues and a bunch of those free leagues were made up of people who were really just kind of "practice drafting". My 13 yr old son is in several of those and of them, only a few look to be leagues where there are actual people running the teams.

 
Premier said:
:lmao: I can't believe how some of you think. "The NFL needs a win so they are going to reverse the Gordon suspension."

This Rice coverup/story is on the cover of the Daily News and being talked about on every news show. It's the biggest news story of the week and one of the biggest of the year. My wife was asking me about it and I can promise you she doesn't care about the NFL at all. She wouldn't know who Josh Gordon is if he was cheefin in our driveway.

The Gordon/drug thing won't even make a dent. Get real.
Click to expand...
But at the same time, how much does she add to the NFL's bottom line?

If it plays with the fans, that's who the NFL cares most about. Not a non-fan who only has an inkling of what goes on in the NFL when something happens to make mention on The View.

When people who never set foot in your store say they are boycotting you, you only worry if it starts to convince those that do to stop coming.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ditka Butkus said:
dagwood said:
Ditka Butkus said:
How can we make this Ray Rice public outcry thing go away?...Hey I got it, lets go easy on illegal drug users.....Brilliant!
Click to expand...
You do realize its legal in several states.
Click to expand...
When the Feds legalize it let me know.
Click to expand...
Are you as outraged when players get caught driving 100 MPH? That endangers other people's lives.

Was Josh Gordon charged or convicted of a federal drug crime? I missed that part.

 
T J said:
I Am the Stig said:
Bayhawks said:
meanjoegreen said:
Sinn Fein said:
I agree - the whole Ray Rice scenario has consumed the audience's attention, and nothing will be gained, from a PR perspective, to getting this deal done.

I now am beginning to think the only way this gets done, is if the players get significant concessions from the owners on the testing/punishment issue. The owners, would probably be best served to table discussions until a time when they, and the commissioner's office, are less vulnerable, and less distracted than they are right now. Doing any kind of deal right now seems like bad business.
Click to expand...
Potential changes aren't being made for the audience. A scandal shouldn't keep an organization from conducting business.
Click to expand...
The point is that recently, a number of posters (most seem to be Gordon owners) are suggesting that the NFL NEED to get this deal done, as a publicity "WIN" to counteract the negative pub they've gotten recently with the Rice situation. They're using this as support for their belief that the NFL will give in to the NFLPA and allow suspended players to have their suspension lifted under a new policy.The fact is that a new drug policy isn't going to counter-act the bad press they've gotten from the Rice situation, so that's just a ridiculous argument.

The two sides don't seem like they are agreeing on the key issues, and the belief that the NFL will cave for some "good press" doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...
I think you are overstating people's belief that letting Gordon off the hook will mean good press. It won't move the needle on national media coverage because only Cleveland fans and FF players care. And since Gordon is only owned in 65% of Yahoo leagues, not that many Fantasy players care either.
Click to expand...
Well, to be fair, a bunch of those yahoo leagues are free leagues and a bunch of those free leagues were made up of people who were really just kind of "practice drafting". My 13 yr old son is in several of those and of them, only a few look to be leagues where there are actual people running the teams.
Click to expand...
And that is actually the point. Many casual fans could care less about the testing rules, but just about anyone who watches TMZ knows about Ray Rice and has an opinion about it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
dagwood said:
Ditka Butkus said:
dagwood said:
Ditka Butkus said:
How can we make this Ray Rice public outcry thing go away?...Hey I got it, lets go easy on illegal drug users.....Brilliant!
Click to expand...
You do realize its legal in several states.
Click to expand...
When the Feds legalize it let me know.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure its not breaking any federal laws if you use it in a state where its legal. There, now you know. :cool:
Click to expand...
You can even buy it with federal money. Of course this was only reported 2 days ago so maybe it has changed.

HHS: Federal Law Allows Marijuana Purchases With Welfare

http://www.wltx.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/09/hhs-federal-law-allows-marijuana-purchases-with-welfare/15366335/

 
JamesTheScot said:
Premier said:
:lmao: I can't believe how some of you think. "The NFL needs a win so they are going to reverse the Gordon suspension."

This Rice coverup/story is on the cover of the Daily News and being talked about on every news show. It's the biggest news story of the week and one of the biggest of the year. My wife was asking me about it and I can promise you she doesn't care about the NFL at all. She wouldn't know who Josh Gordon is if he was cheefin in our driveway.

The Gordon/drug thing won't even make a dent. Get real.
Click to expand...
But at the same time, how much does she add to the NFL's bottom line?

If it plays with the fans, that's who the NFL cares most about. Not a non-fan who only has an inkling of what goes on in the NFL when something happens to make mention on The View.

When people who never set foot in your store say they are boycotting you, you only worry if it starts to convince those that do to stop coming.
Click to expand...
Well, if the NFL wasn't worried about growing their fan base they wouldn't be trying to expand in Europe, dressing in pink and doing many other things to add fans. So yes, what the current non-fan thinks matters. Along with the fact that the non-fans are exactly who politicians can play to for greatest effect.

 
Bayhawks said:
PatsWillWin said:
Bayhawks said:
I Am the Stig said:
Bayhawks said:
skinsrule05 said:
Bayhawks,

It is sounding like you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. It is not that a deal is hugely positive news or that it will outweigh the Rice scandel. It is just different news that definitely isn't negative. People are distracted very easily. Squirrel!!
Click to expand...
Huh?I'm just pointing out that people in this thread who think the NFL "NEEDS" this policy for a publicity "WIN" are grasping at straws. I've said several times, IF a policy gets done, it's because the NFL wants it, not because they "NEED" a "WIN."
Click to expand...
Two guys saying this does not the everyone make.

The two issues are not even in the same universe.
Click to expand...
Go back through the last dozen or so pages (or more) if you must; it's A LOT more than 2 guys saying this.
Click to expand...
That's because this thread is jam-packed with Gordon owners who will see a reason in anything. "Goodell needs a PR win" is this week's version of "the appeal taking this long means Gordon is going to win."
Click to expand...
I know that.

TheDirtyWord said:
From PFT:

Goodell said both Panthers defensive end Greg Hardy and 49ers defensive end Ray McDonald would fall under the new domestic violence policy, even though Hardy’s arrest and conviction (which has been appealed to a November jury trial) came before the policy changed.

“It’s very important to make sure we have all the facts and to make sure law enforcement has the opportunity to do what they need to do,” Goodell said of the two cases. “But then we have to make sure whatever action that we should take at the appropriate time, we’re in position to do.”

QUESTION: So if actions in these cases that took place prior to policy revisions on domestic violence would incur the new penalties implemented, why would this not apply to Gordon the other way around?
Click to expand...
That's a good question. Although I believe the McDonald arrest took place AFTER the announcement, Hardy's incident was prior to the new policy. I'd imagine if the NFL tried to punish him with the new guidelines, the NFLPA would have to fight it and/or Hardy would have legal grounds to object.

That being said, the old policy allowed Goodell to issue punishments for personal conduct issues as he saw fit, so I suppose he could say that he saw a 6 game suspension as appropriate under the old policy.
Click to expand...
I think the NFLPA may balk at allowing any retroactive punishment. Leniency and punishment are not treated the same.

I say that because there is a very real possibility that a decent percentage of the players have been involved in DV in the past and would worry that a motivated current or ex GF or even wife might use that to her advantage. I doubt that the players would sign off on handing out significant suspensions for infractions that weren't treated as harshly when the infraction occurred.

Are Brandon Marshall or Dez Bryant going to vote for retroactive punishment of previous DV incidents? Is helping out Josh Gordon get back in the league enough to put their head on the block? No way.

I don't think it's going to be a ### for tat on the retroactive punishment vs. retroactive leniency. I think you don't get near as much retroactive punishment as you do leniency.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

greenmountaingoat
Ainias Smith-WR- Draft eligible Texas A&M
Replies
8
Views
255
Faust
Faust
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: 7 (members: 0, guests: 7)
Top