Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Matt Waldman

Josh Gordon Everything Thread

Recommended Posts

The good thing is he if that is correct will be practicing with the team and ready to go week 12. Better then him being away from the team and not in shape.

The blurb lists practices as something he is still barred from.

opps, I read that as he was able to practice, my bad , thank you .

Edited by damageinc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

uh oh

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 $$

As well as they should....To go retro is a stupid bad decision.

Wow, did Josh Gordon steal your dog or something? What do you have against the kid?

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.

:lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

uh oh

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 $$

As well as they should....To go retro is a stupid bad decision.

Wow, did Josh Gordon steal your dog or something? What do you have against the kid?

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.

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.

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...

:lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

uh oh

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 $$

As well as they should....To go retro is a stupid bad decision.

Wow, did Josh Gordon steal your dog or something? What do you have against the kid?

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.

Marijuana is legal. Do you have a link to him actually using illegal drugs?

Well I think I found the reason why so many people disagree about Gordon's suspension. Some people don't know the federal laws in this country.

Prohibition was the law of the land at one time too....didn't make it right. And it didn't last. And neither will federal legislation outlawing marijuana. Victimless crimes should not be legislated by the federal government nor the NFL.

Go ask some of the folks who live in border towns by Mexico where the cartels run the show about victimless crimes.

:lmao:

The very laws that make drug usage a crime give those cartels the power/incentive to do what they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For somebody claining to be logical and rational you are yourself refusing to accept facts

"weed's not that bad"

Fact: weed is being legalized in more and more states and most Americans support legalization

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165539/first-time-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx

The optics of the Rice and Peterson situation contrasted to an activity most would legalize has to be in the minds of the PR folks

"the NFL's levels are too low,"

Fact; Based on NFL levels you could pass a drug test to be an Air Traffic controller, but you can't step on a football field.

Gordon should sue (even though he has no legal grounds to do so,"

Right now, reports say we are looking at a result is that he gets the stage 3/4 suspension under the new agreement based on test taken in the previous "league year."

The facts is that this is a fluid situation. There is no agreement in place. Despite the sides being close, we may not get one. When we get one, we don't know what that agreement will say.

This is my point.

It doesn't matter if weed is being legalized; that fact is irrelevant to the topic at hand: Gordon's failed test, the NFL's substance abuse policy, and his resulting punishment. Adderall is legal, too, yet players get suspended for that. But Gordon-ites in this thread insist that this is a logical argument for why Gordon shouldn't have been suspended.

If the "optics" of the Rice/Gordon situation were so important (PR-wise) to the NFL, why didn't they give Rice a longer suspension initially? Why didn't they give Gordon a shorter suspension initially? Because what Gordon-ites insist is important, isn't (at least not important enough to #freejoshgordon.

Yes, the reports (unconfirmed, as of yet) that Gordon is going to have a 10-game suspension is based on the new policy, and negotiations between the NFL and NFLPA. Not based on the NFL's desire to see Gordon play, not based on his ridiculous, un-scientific argument that it was 2nd-hand smoke, not based on some incorrect interpretation of Ohio's legal code or the CBA, but on the wording of the new policy.

I agree with your last point, it is a fluid situation, but that doesn't mean that logic and reason won't govern the process. No one could have predicted that the NFL and NFLPA were going to re-negotiate their drug policy, in-season, but anyone who logically looked at the situation, without bias, could have predicted that Gordon was going to get a year suspension, that he was going to lose his appeal, that he had no legal grounds to sue (and win), and that the NFL wasn't going to "bend" their rules (because they want Gordon to play or because of the Rice situation).

The Ray Rice situation speaks to the value of optics. The NFL was happy with him getting two games until the video got leaked. Now the NFL is launching "an investigation" which is another show. (interestingly, the NFLPA is launching its own investigation)

In a fluid situation, with nothing set in stone, these side issues do come into play and could weaken the NFL's resolve to be so rigid.

One of issues with HGH that was being negotiated was a players ability to challenge the science of the tests. If the new agreement gave JG any right to re-appeal by challenging the science or going to a third party, he would win IMHO. Two tubes from the same sample - one showing 16 and another 13.5...within margin of error, It's hard to say he was definitely over the limit, and maybe it's more probable he was under

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For somebody claining to be logical and rational you are yourself refusing to accept facts

"weed's not that bad"

Fact: weed is being legalized in more and more states and most Americans support legalization

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165539/first-time-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx

The optics of the Rice and Peterson situation contrasted to an activity most would legalize has to be in the minds of the PR folks

"the NFL's levels are too low,"

Fact; Based on NFL levels you could pass a drug test to be an Air Traffic controller, but you can't step on a football field.

Gordon should sue (even though he has no legal grounds to do so,"

Right now, reports say we are looking at a result is that he gets the stage 3/4 suspension under the new agreement based on test taken in the previous "league year."

The facts is that this is a fluid situation. There is no agreement in place. Despite the sides being close, we may not get one. When we get one, we don't know what that agreement will say.

This is my point.

It doesn't matter if weed is being legalized; that fact is irrelevant to the topic at hand: Gordon's failed test, the NFL's substance abuse policy, and his resulting punishment. Adderall is legal, too, yet players get suspended for that. But Gordon-ites in this thread insist that this is a logical argument for why Gordon shouldn't have been suspended.

If the "optics" of the Rice/Gordon situation were so important (PR-wise) to the NFL, why didn't they give Rice a longer suspension initially? Why didn't they give Gordon a shorter suspension initially? Because what Gordon-ites insist is important, isn't (at least not important enough to #freejoshgordon.

Yes, the reports (unconfirmed, as of yet) that Gordon is going to have a 10-game suspension is based on the new policy, and negotiations between the NFL and NFLPA. Not based on the NFL's desire to see Gordon play, not based on his ridiculous, un-scientific argument that it was 2nd-hand smoke, not based on some incorrect interpretation of Ohio's legal code or the CBA, but on the wording of the new policy.

I agree with your last point, it is a fluid situation, but that doesn't mean that logic and reason won't govern the process. No one could have predicted that the NFL and NFLPA were going to re-negotiate their drug policy, in-season, but anyone who logically looked at the situation, without bias, could have predicted that Gordon was going to get a year suspension, that he was going to lose his appeal, that he had no legal grounds to sue (and win), and that the NFL wasn't going to "bend" their rules (because they want Gordon to play or because of the Rice situation).

The Ray Rice situation speaks to the value of optics. The NFL was happy with him getting two games until the video got leaked. Now the NFL is launching "an investigation" which is another show. (interestingly, the NFLPA is launching its own investigation)

In a fluid situation, with nothing set in stone, these side issues do come into play and could weaken the NFL's resolve to be so rigid.

One of issues with HGH that was being negotiated was a players ability to challenge the science of the tests. If the new agreement gave JG any right to re-appeal by challenging the science or going to a third party, he would win IMHO. Two tubes from the same sample - one showing 16 and another 13.5...within margin of error, It's hard to say he was definitely over the limit, and maybe it's more probable he was under

But the "optics" you speak of have nothing to do with Gordon.

The NFL doesn't think that lightening up on their weed policy will make them look better with regards to their handling of Rice's situation. It's ridiculous to suggest this is the case, yet many of the Gordon-ites do so, despite the fact that all evidence suggest otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I've read the rules correctly then stage 3 players will be in stage 3 for the rest of their careers and it involves up to 10 unscheduled drug tests per month. Given Gordon's history I'm not very confident that my "savvy" acquisition will pay off unless I can unload him. Hope my league mates aren't reading this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For somebody claining to be logical and rational you are yourself refusing to accept facts

"weed's not that bad"

Fact: weed is being legalized in more and more states and most Americans support legalization

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165539/first-time-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx

The optics of the Rice and Peterson situation contrasted to an activity most would legalize has to be in the minds of the PR folks

"the NFL's levels are too low,"

Fact; Based on NFL levels you could pass a drug test to be an Air Traffic controller, but you can't step on a football field.

Gordon should sue (even though he has no legal grounds to do so,"

Right now, reports say we are looking at a result is that he gets the stage 3/4 suspension under the new agreement based on test taken in the previous "league year."

The facts is that this is a fluid situation. There is no agreement in place. Despite the sides being close, we may not get one. When we get one, we don't know what that agreement will say.

This is my point.

It doesn't matter if weed is being legalized; that fact is irrelevant to the topic at hand: Gordon's failed test, the NFL's substance abuse policy, and his resulting punishment. Adderall is legal, too, yet players get suspended for that. But Gordon-ites in this thread insist that this is a logical argument for why Gordon shouldn't have been suspended.

If the "optics" of the Rice/Gordon situation were so important (PR-wise) to the NFL, why didn't they give Rice a longer suspension initially? Why didn't they give Gordon a shorter suspension initially? Because what Gordon-ites insist is important, isn't (at least not important enough to #freejoshgordon.

Yes, the reports (unconfirmed, as of yet) that Gordon is going to have a 10-game suspension is based on the new policy, and negotiations between the NFL and NFLPA. Not based on the NFL's desire to see Gordon play, not based on his ridiculous, un-scientific argument that it was 2nd-hand smoke, not based on some incorrect interpretation of Ohio's legal code or the CBA, but on the wording of the new policy.

I agree with your last point, it is a fluid situation, but that doesn't mean that logic and reason won't govern the process. No one could have predicted that the NFL and NFLPA were going to re-negotiate their drug policy, in-season, but anyone who logically looked at the situation, without bias, could have predicted that Gordon was going to get a year suspension, that he was going to lose his appeal, that he had no legal grounds to sue (and win), and that the NFL wasn't going to "bend" their rules (because they want Gordon to play or because of the Rice situation).

The Ray Rice situation speaks to the value of optics. The NFL was happy with him getting two games until the video got leaked. Now the NFL is launching "an investigation" which is another show. (interestingly, the NFLPA is launching its own investigation)

In a fluid situation, with nothing set in stone, these side issues do come into play and could weaken the NFL's resolve to be so rigid.

One of issues with HGH that was being negotiated was a players ability to challenge the science of the tests. If the new agreement gave JG any right to re-appeal by challenging the science or going to a third party, he would win IMHO. Two tubes from the same sample - one showing 16 and another 13.5...within margin of error, It's hard to say he was definitely over the limit, and maybe it's more probable he was under

But the "optics" you speak of have nothing to do with Gordon.

The NFL doesn't think that lightening up on their weed policy will make them look better with regards to their handling of Rice's situation. It's ridiculous to suggest this is the case, yet many of the Gordon-ites do so, despite the fact that all evidence suggest otherwise.

you don't think having a guy like ADP playing and only having initially suspended Ray Rice for two days (after allegedly already having had the tape in its possession) contrasted with suspending a guy for most of season over second hand smoke which had at levels where he would have passed a drug trust to be an air traffic controller is not bad "optics" and will not be harped on by the media and will not cause pressure to build on Goodell, then you are the one that is simply ignoring facts and not the so-called "Gordon-ites"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you don't think having a guy like ADP playing and only having initially suspended Ray Rice for two days (after allegedly already having had the tape in its possession) contrasted with suspending a guy for most of season over second hand smoke which had at levels where he would have passed a drug trust to be an air traffic controller is not bad "optics" and will not be harped on by the media and will not cause pressure to build on Goodell, then you are the one that is simply ignoring facts and not the so-called "Gordon-ites"

What pressure? What evidence of this "pressure" is there? Just because you think Goodell is under this pressure doesn't mean he is. And, more importantly, there is ZERO evidence that this "pressure" has had even an iota of influence on Gordon's situation.

The facts are:

Rice got off easy.

Public backlash.

Gordon got the suspension called for by the CBA.

Gordon appealed.

Gordon's appeal was denied.

How do you look at those facts and say the pressure Goodell was under due to Rice influenced the Gordon situation? Gordon got EXACTLY the same punishment he would have gotten if Rice had never touched his fiancee/wife.

Please explain, using FACTS, not saying "he should feel pressure." Show PROOF of this pressure. Show how he went easier on Gordon b/c of the Rice/ADP situation.

Edited by Bayhawks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you don't think having a guy like ADP playing and only having initially suspended Ray Rice for two days (after allegedly already having had the tape in its possession) contrasted with suspending a guy for most of season over second hand smoke which had at levels where he would have passed a drug trust to be an air traffic controller is not bad "optics" and will not be harped on by the media and will not cause pressure to build on Goodell, then you are the one that is simply ignoring facts and not the so-called "Gordon-ites"

Unfortunately, I don't think the general public gives a #### about Gordon and hence you're unlikely to see his case contrasted with the others you mentioned. And I would note that this is coming from a person who feels strongly that Gordon's suspension is unjust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you don't think having a guy like ADP playing and only having initially suspended Ray Rice for two days (after allegedly already having had the tape in its possession) contrasted with suspending a guy for most of season over second hand smoke which had at levels where he would have passed a drug trust to be an air traffic controller is not bad "optics" and will not be harped on by the media and will not cause pressure to build on Goodell, then you are the one that is simply ignoring facts and not the so-called "Gordon-ites"

What pressure? What evidence of this "pressure" is there? Just because you think Goodell is under this pressure doesn't mean he is. And, more importantly, there is ZERO evidence that this "pressure" has had even an iota of influence on Gordon's situation.

The facts are:

Rice got off easy.

Public backlash.

Gordon got the suspension called for by the CBA.

Gordon appealed.

Gordon's appeal was denied.

How do you look at those facts and say the pressure Goodell was under due to Rice influenced the Gordon situation? Gordon got EXACTLY the same punishment he would have gotten if Rice had never touched his fiancee/wife.

Please explain, using FACTS, not saying "he should feel pressure." Show PROOF of this pressure. Show how he went easier on Gordon b/c of the Rice/ADP situation.

The only news about Josh Gordon - and granted there isn't room for much - is that he is going to have his suspension reduced. I haven't heard anyone on mainstream media talking about the injustice of it. Not ESPN, not NFL Network. And regular news outlets haven't any idea what's going on here. When the agreement is finally sealed we may hear how HGH testing is now agreed to. And nothing more until the positive tests start popping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you don't think having a guy like ADP playing and only having initially suspended Ray Rice for two days (after allegedly already having had the tape in its possession) contrasted with suspending a guy for most of season over second hand smoke which had at levels where he would have passed a drug trust to be an air traffic controller is not bad "optics" and will not be harped on by the media and will not cause pressure to build on Goodell, then you are the one that is simply ignoring facts and not the so-called "Gordon-ites"

What pressure? What evidence of this "pressure" is there? Just because you think Goodell is under this pressure doesn't mean he is. And, more importantly, there is ZERO evidence that this "pressure" has had even an iota of influence on Gordon's situation.

The facts are:

Rice got off easy.

Public backlash.

Gordon got the suspension called for by the CBA.

Gordon appealed.

Gordon's appeal was denied.

How do you look at those facts and say the pressure Goodell was under due to Rice influenced the Gordon situation? Gordon got EXACTLY the same punishment he would have gotten if Rice had never touched his fiancee/wife.

Please explain, using FACTS, not saying "he should feel pressure." Show PROOF of this pressure. Show how he went easier on Gordon b/c of the Rice/ADP situation.

Pressure:

Maureen Dowd and Keith Olbermann are already calling for Goodell's resignation

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/opinion/sunday/maureen-dowd-throw-the-bums-out.html?_r=0

fact:

a new CBA agreement is currently being negotiated, the terms of which are unknown, although certain things have been "leaked" but their accuracy and this CBA are not set in stone

fact:

Appeals under the current, potentially soon to be discarded, CBA go to the NFL. SI the NFL a fair arbitrator of punishments handed out by the NFL? Those guys report to Goodell. Will the new CBA have a new appeals process or potentially disinterested arbitrators? UNKNOWN

Because there will potentially be a CBA and because we don't know what the CBA will say, and because the negotiation process is ongoing, those things matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you don't think having a guy like ADP playing and only having initially suspended Ray Rice for two days (after allegedly already having had the tape in its possession) contrasted with suspending a guy for most of season over second hand smoke which had at levels where he would have passed a drug trust to be an air traffic controller is not bad "optics" and will not be harped on by the media and will not cause pressure to build on Goodell, then you are the one that is simply ignoring facts and not the so-called "Gordon-ites"

What pressure? What evidence of this "pressure" is there? Just because you think Goodell is under this pressure doesn't mean he is. And, more importantly, there is ZERO evidence that this "pressure" has had even an iota of influence on Gordon's situation.

The facts are:

Rice got off easy.

Public backlash.

Gordon got the suspension called for by the CBA.

Gordon appealed.

Gordon's appeal was denied.

How do you look at those facts and say the pressure Goodell was under due to Rice influenced the Gordon situation? Gordon got EXACTLY the same punishment he would have gotten if Rice had never touched his fiancee/wife.

Please explain, using FACTS, not saying "he should feel pressure." Show PROOF of this pressure. Show how he went easier on Gordon b/c of the Rice/ADP situation.

The only news about Josh Gordon - and granted there isn't room for much - is that he is going to have his suspension reduced. I haven't heard anyone on mainstream media talking about the injustice of it. Not ESPN, not NFL Network. And regular news outlets haven't any idea what's going on here. When the agreement is finally sealed we may hear how HGH testing is now agreed to. And nothing more until the positive tests start popping.

Exactly. We have unofficial reports that Gordon is going to have his suspension reduced, and that is not a commissioner act, but it would be the results of negotiations between the league and the NFLPA over a new drug policy.

There is ZERO indication that Goodell or the NFL has succumbed to any pressure to go easy on Gordon b/c of the Rice/ADP situations. Only Gordon-ites who have been/still are clinging to ridiculous theories about when/if he returns from suspension think that, because there is no basis for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you don't think having a guy like ADP playing and only having initially suspended Ray Rice for two days (after allegedly already having had the tape in its possession) contrasted with suspending a guy for most of season over second hand smoke which had at levels where he would have passed a drug trust to be an air traffic controller is not bad "optics" and will not be harped on by the media and will not cause pressure to build on Goodell, then you are the one that is simply ignoring facts and not the so-called "Gordon-ites"

What pressure? What evidence of this "pressure" is there? Just because you think Goodell is under this pressure doesn't mean he is. And, more importantly, there is ZERO evidence that this "pressure" has had even an iota of influence on Gordon's situation.

The facts are:

Rice got off easy.

Public backlash.

Gordon got the suspension called for by the CBA.

Gordon appealed.

Gordon's appeal was denied.

How do you look at those facts and say the pressure Goodell was under due to Rice influenced the Gordon situation? Gordon got EXACTLY the same punishment he would have gotten if Rice had never touched his fiancee/wife.

Please explain, using FACTS, not saying "he should feel pressure." Show PROOF of this pressure. Show how he went easier on Gordon b/c of the Rice/ADP situation.

Pressure:

Maureen Dowd and Keith Olbermann are already calling for Goodell's resignation

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/opinion/sunday/maureen-dowd-throw-the-bums-out.html?_r=0

fact:

a new CBA agreement is currently being negotiated, the terms of which are unknown, although certain things have been "leaked" but their accuracy and this CBA are not set in stone

fact:

Appeals under the current, potentially soon to be discarded, CBA go to the NFL. SI the NFL a fair arbitrator of punishments handed out by the NFL? Those guys report to Goodell. Will the new CBA have a new appeals process or potentially disinterested arbitrators? UNKNOWN

Because there will potentially be a CBA and because we don't know what the CBA will say, and because the negotiation process is ongoing, those things matter.

Did I miss the part where she said free Josh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you don't think having a guy like ADP playing and only having initially suspended Ray Rice for two days (after allegedly already having had the tape in its possession) contrasted with suspending a guy for most of season over second hand smoke which had at levels where he would have passed a drug trust to be an air traffic controller is not bad "optics" and will not be harped on by the media and will not cause pressure to build on Goodell, then you are the one that is simply ignoring facts and not the so-called "Gordon-ites"

What pressure? What evidence of this "pressure" is there? Just because you think Goodell is under this pressure doesn't mean he is. And, more importantly, there is ZERO evidence that this "pressure" has had even an iota of influence on Gordon's situation.

The facts are:

Rice got off easy.

Public backlash.

Gordon got the suspension called for by the CBA.

Gordon appealed.

Gordon's appeal was denied.

How do you look at those facts and say the pressure Goodell was under due to Rice influenced the Gordon situation? Gordon got EXACTLY the same punishment he would have gotten if Rice had never touched his fiancee/wife.

Please explain, using FACTS, not saying "he should feel pressure." Show PROOF of this pressure. Show how he went easier on Gordon b/c of the Rice/ADP situation.

Pressure:

Maureen Dowd and Keith Olbermann are already calling for Goodell's resignation

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/opinion/sunday/maureen-dowd-throw-the-bums-out.html?_r=0

fact:

a new CBA agreement is currently being negotiated, the terms of which are unknown, although certain things have been "leaked" but their accuracy and this CBA are not set in stone

fact:

Appeals under the current, potentially soon to be discarded, CBA go to the NFL. SI the NFL a fair arbitrator of punishments handed out by the NFL? Those guys report to Goodell. Will the new CBA have a new appeals process or potentially disinterested arbitrators? UNKNOWN

Because there will potentially be a CBA and because we don't know what the CBA will say, and because the negotiation process is ongoing, those things matter.

The article you linked doesn't mention Josh Gordon or the NFL substance abuse policy. So, that's not proof of Gordon's situation being impacted by any pressure the NFL or Goodell is/are under. How are you going to cite an article as proof of something when it doesn't discuss the issue at hand? :confused:

The negotiations between the NFL and the NFLPA have nothing to do with the personel conduct policy or domestic abuse (which falls under the personal conduct policy).

Do you even understand what we are talking about?

I'll stipulate that Goodell is under pressure with regards to the NFL's handling of Rice's situation and domestic abuse cases. What I'm saying, AGAIN, is that this pressure, and the Rice/ADP situations have absolutely no bearing on the Gordon situation, or the negotiations going on between the NFL and NFLPA about the drug policies.

You keep citing/discussing instances that talk/cover the two issues separately, but you provide no evidence that shows any link between the two of them. Do you know why that is?

Because there is no link between them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you don't think having a guy like ADP playing and only having initially suspended Ray Rice for two days (after allegedly already having had the tape in its possession) contrasted with suspending a guy for most of season over second hand smoke which had at levels where he would have passed a drug trust to be an air traffic controller is not bad "optics" and will not be harped on by the media and will not cause pressure to build on Goodell, then you are the one that is simply ignoring facts and not the so-called "Gordon-ites"

What pressure? What evidence of this "pressure" is there? Just because you think Goodell is under this pressure doesn't mean he is. And, more importantly, there is ZERO evidence that this "pressure" has had even an iota of influence on Gordon's situation.

The facts are:

Rice got off easy.

Public backlash.

Gordon got the suspension called for by the CBA.

Gordon appealed.

Gordon's appeal was denied.

How do you look at those facts and say the pressure Goodell was under due to Rice influenced the Gordon situation? Gordon got EXACTLY the same punishment he would have gotten if Rice had never touched his fiancee/wife.

Please explain, using FACTS, not saying "he should feel pressure." Show PROOF of this pressure. Show how he went easier on Gordon b/c of the Rice/ADP situation.

Pressure:

Maureen Dowd and Keith Olbermann are already calling for Goodell's resignation

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/opinion/sunday/maureen-dowd-throw-the-bums-out.html?_r=0

fact:

a new CBA agreement is currently being negotiated, the terms of which are unknown, although certain things have been "leaked" but their accuracy and this CBA are not set in stone

fact:

Appeals under the current, potentially soon to be discarded, CBA go to the NFL. SI the NFL a fair arbitrator of punishments handed out by the NFL? Those guys report to Goodell. Will the new CBA have a new appeals process or potentially disinterested arbitrators? UNKNOWN

Because there will potentially be a CBA and because we don't know what the CBA will say, and because the negotiation process is ongoing, those things matter.

Did I miss the part where she said free Josh?

No, you didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.aol.com/article/2014/09/10/should-nfl-commissioner-roger-goodell-resign/20960566/

Many Americans were infuriated when he originally handed down only a two-game suspension to the former Ravens running back after he pleaded guilty to hitting then-fiancee Jenay Parker in an Atlantic City elevator and dragging her unconscious body into a hallway.

Cleveland Browns wide receiver Josh Gordon, by comparison, received a season-long ban for smoking marijuana. Gordon is not known to have assaulted or harmed anyone while high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.aol.com/article/2014/09/10/should-nfl-commissioner-roger-goodell-resign/20960566/

Many Americans were infuriated when he originally handed down only a two-game suspension to the former Ravens running back after he pleaded guilty to hitting then-fiancee Jenay Parker in an Atlantic City elevator and dragging her unconscious body into a hallway.

Cleveland Browns wide receiver Josh Gordon, by comparison, received a season-long ban for smoking marijuana. Gordon is not known to have assaulted or harmed anyone while high.

:no:

I heard he smashed hard that box of Twinkies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/roger-goodell-step-down

he new rule is another example of a commissioner who is obsessed with hard-and-fast rules that are only created immediately after controversy, but do not allow for nuance or malleability in the face of new evidence.

Roger Goodell’s policy on drugs—perhaps the one that requires the most flexibility in its interpretation—is just as rigid and unbudging as all of the rest. It is a policy that suspends a player the same for taking anabolic steroids, or crack cocaine, or heroin, or marijuana, or fertility pills, or unprescribed Sudafed.

It is a policy that punished Robert Mathis for taking a prescribed pill that would help him and his wife conceive a child. His wife could not take fertility pills because it would put her health in danger. The couple was having trouble conceiving. After taking the pills, Mathis and his wife had twins.

Robert Mathis was suspended for four games by Roger Goodell.

Josh Gordon and Daryl Washington were banished for the entire 2014 NFL season for testing positive for marijuana.

Ray Rice, who knocked his wife unconscious and, in his own words, “owns (his) actions,” will be suspended for two games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've made my position on the NFL's marijuana policy very clear in this thread but I think the optics of comparing it to the Ray Rice suspension are being overblown.

The optics are easy with Rice. A video of a man cold cocking his significant other in an elevator then kicking her leg in half hearted attempted to move he unconscious body are undeniably horrendous. Cut and dry.

The optics and public opinion on marijuana use and, even though many refuse to admit it, Adrian Peterson, are not nearly as cut and dry. For that reason the social and political pressure in those situations are much more complicated than with Rice. There is no real net benefit to the league's PR machine by reducing Gordon's suspension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/roger-goodell-step-down

he new rule is another example of a commissioner who is obsessed with hard-and-fast rules that are only created immediately after controversy, but do not allow for nuance or malleability in the face of new evidence.

Roger Goodell’s policy on drugs—perhaps the one that requires the most flexibility in its interpretation—is just as rigid and unbudging as all of the rest. It is a policy that suspends a player the same for taking anabolic steroids, or crack cocaine, or heroin, or marijuana, or fertility pills, or unprescribed Sudafed.

It is a policy that punished Robert Mathis for taking a prescribed pill that would help him and his wife conceive a child. His wife could not take fertility pills because it would put her health in danger. The couple was having trouble conceiving. After taking the pills, Mathis and his wife had twins.

Robert Mathis was suspended for four games by Roger Goodell.

Josh Gordon and Daryl Washington were banished for the entire 2014 NFL season for testing positive for marijuana.

Ray Rice, who knocked his wife unconscious and, in his own words, “owns (his) actions,” will be suspended for two games.

Still waiting on any evidence that the pressure Goodell is under has impacted, IN ANY WAY, Josh Gordon's situation.

Under the current policy, Gordon was supposed to be suspended for a year. He is.

Under the new policy, Gordon is (by most reports) supposed to be suspended for 10 games. The report is that he will be suspended.......10 games.

So, if the pressure Goodell is facing b/c of the Rice situation is impacting his handling of Gordon, how come Gordon is getting EXACTLY the prescribed punishment under the current policy, and EXACTLY the reported prescribed punishment under the reported new policy? If the pressure from the Rice situation had any impact on Gordon's situation, shouldn't there be something we could point to and say "see, Gordon got more leniency, b/c Goodell was trying to get some good press because of the Rice fiasco!"

Why can't we see anything like that?

Edited by Bayhawks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://dailysnark.com/petition-impeach-roger-goodell/

In light of the seemingly mind bogglingly contradicting discipline rulings on Ray Rice, Josh Gordon, and Jim Irsay, we created a petition in effort to force a vote of forceful resignation

Oh, dailysnark.com! I guess we can expect to hear tomorrow that Gordon is going to have his suspension wiped from the books because of dailysnark.com's petition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://dailysnark.com/petition-impeach-roger-goodell/

In light of the seemingly mind bogglingly contradicting discipline rulings on Ray Rice, Josh Gordon, and Jim Irsay, we created a petition in effort to force a vote of forceful resignation

About 3200 people have signed this petition that has been up for at least a month. By comparison that is less than 1/3 of the average daily attendance at Redskins training camp practice this summer. Training camp. Think about that for a second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/roger-goodell-lose-job-maybe-163753797.html

First, he suspended Ray Rice a paltry two games and one additional game check for hitting his fiancé, then he made the whole thing practically a punch-line by suspending Josh Gordon an entire season for a very low level amount of THC in a drug test, a level that some have argued is possible simply by contact (not actually ingesting/inhaling). And I agree, but maybe not for the main reason most are pointing out; although to be fair I have seen a few mention the angle I will be taking here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that's not actually the case, but that's the optics of it.

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.

The optics of the Rice and Peterson situation contrasted to an activity most would legalize has to be in the minds of the PR folks

The optics are easy with Rice.

Let's not do this anymore.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that's not actually the case, but that's the optics of it.

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.

The optics of the Rice and Peterson situation contrasted to an activity most would legalize has to be in the minds of the PR folks

The optics are easy with Rice.

Let's not do this anymore.

I hated it for years, but now that I know what it refers to (and it seems to be a great linguistic/verbal reaction to the pervasiveness of PR and imagery, especially) I don't think it's so bad? Certain conditions -- and in this case, media consumption from TV, secret sources, trademarks, PR, branding, and other things -- call for the usurpation of existing words or neologisms, IMO.

/upspeak

Edited by rockaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/roger-goodell-step-down

he new rule is another example of a commissioner who is obsessed with hard-and-fast rules that are only created immediately after controversy, but do not allow for nuance or malleability in the face of new evidence.

Roger Goodell’s policy on drugs—perhaps the one that requires the most flexibility in its interpretation—is just as rigid and unbudging as all of the rest. It is a policy that suspends a player the same for taking anabolic steroids, or crack cocaine, or heroin, or marijuana, or fertility pills, or unprescribed Sudafed.

It is a policy that punished Robert Mathis for taking a prescribed pill that would help him and his wife conceive a child. His wife could not take fertility pills because it would put her health in danger. The couple was having trouble conceiving. After taking the pills, Mathis and his wife had twins.

Robert Mathis was suspended for four games by Roger Goodell.

Josh Gordon and Daryl Washington were banished for the entire 2014 NFL season for testing positive for marijuana.

Ray Rice, who knocked his wife unconscious and, in his own words, “owns (his) actions,” will be suspended for two games.

Still waiting on any evidence that the pressure Goodell is under has impacted, IN ANY WAY, Josh Gordon's situation.

so sorry you can't put 2 and 2 together on this and see where it may have sway and stoke the flames pushing for Goodell to resign. So far, he has appeared tone deaf, but it is still a valid consideration and fact that cannot be ignored

Under the current policy, Gordon was supposed to be suspended for a year. He is.

Under the new policy, Gordon is (by most reports) supposed to be suspended for 10 games. The report is that he will be suspended.......10 games.

As has been reported, but no final agreement exists, and it continues to not exist

So, if the pressure Goodell is facing b/c of the Rice situation is impacting his handling of Gordon, how come Gordon is getting EXACTLY the prescribed punishment under the current policy, and EXACTLY the reported prescribed punishment under the reported new policy? If the pressure from the Rice situation had any impact on Gordon's situation, shouldn't there be something we could point to and say "see, Gordon got more leniency, b/c Goodell was trying to get some good press because of the Rice fiasco!"

no new policy exists yet...you keep quoting things from a non-existent agreement as facts. I still think there's good chance this agreement will be tabled until next year.

Why can't we see anything like that?

see above

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that's not actually the case, but that's the optics of it.

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.

The optics of the Rice and Peterson situation contrasted to an activity most would legalize has to be in the minds of the PR folks

The optics are easy with Rice.

Let's not do this anymore.

I'm genuinely, and maybe easily, confused.

Was this a joke or are we not supposed to say optics here anymore?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that's not actually the case, but that's the optics of it.

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.

The optics of the Rice and Peterson situation contrasted to an activity most would legalize has to be in the minds of the PR folks

The optics are easy with Rice.

Let's not do this anymore.

I'm genuinely, and maybe easily, confused.

Was this a joke or are we not supposed to say optics here anymore?

Yep. I think that is what he is getting at. It's a newer term, that to some people, identifies a lot of things wrong with political, business or corporate-esque language.

It's hard to explain. And my point is very much like this article's (swear to God I didn't look it up beforehand. I'd read Boorstin's "The Image," which has been weighing heavily on mind the past week, wondering how exactly his quaint dissatisfaction with interviews and staged press events would hold up to today's overwhelming media. Anyway, enough of my rambling. Here's the history.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/magazine/07FOB-onlanguage-t.html?_r=0

Edited by rockaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that's not actually the case, but that's the optics of it.

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.

The optics of the Rice and Peterson situation contrasted to an activity most would legalize has to be in the minds of the PR folks

The optics are easy with Rice.

Let's not do this anymore.

I'm genuinely, and maybe easily, confused.

Was this a joke or are we not supposed to say optics here anymore?

It's been retired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that's not actually the case, but that's the optics of it.

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.

The optics of the Rice and Peterson situation contrasted to an activity most would legalize has to be in the minds of the PR folks

The optics are easy with Rice.

Let's not do this anymore.

I'm genuinely, and maybe easily, confused.

Was this a joke or are we not supposed to say optics here anymore?

Yep. I think that is what he is getting at. It's a newer term, that to some people, identifies a lot of things wrong with political, business or corporate-esque language.

It's hard to explain. And my point is very much like this article's (swear to God I didn't look it up beforehand. I'd read Boorstin's "The Image," which has been weighing heavily on mind the past week, wondering how exactly his quaint dissatisfaction with interviews and staged press events would hold up to today's overwhelming media. Anyway, enough of my rambling. Here's the history.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/magazine/07FOB-onlanguage-t.html?_r=0

I'm still confused. I work in public policy and live in the DC area so I use optics on a regular basis. There are good optics and bad optics so the word, in and of itself, is not negative in the context that it's used here inside the beltway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that's not actually the case, but that's the optics of it.

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.

The optics of the Rice and Peterson situation contrasted to an activity most would legalize has to be in the minds of the PR folks

The optics are easy with Rice.

Let's not do this anymore.

I'm genuinely, and maybe easily, confused.

Was this a joke or are we not supposed to say optics here anymore?

Yep. I think that is what he is getting at. It's a newer term, that to some people, identifies a lot of things wrong with political, business or corporate-esque language.

It's hard to explain. And my point is very much like this article's (swear to God I didn't look it up beforehand. I'd read Boorstin's "The Image," which has been weighing heavily on mind the past week, wondering how exactly his quaint dissatisfaction with interviews and staged press events would hold up to today's overwhelming media. Anyway, enough of my rambling. Here's the history.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/magazine/07FOB-onlanguage-t.html?_r=0

I'm still confused. I work in public policy and live in the DC area so I use optics on a regular basis. There are good optics and bad optics so the word, in and of itself, is not negative in the context that it's used here inside the beltway.

Ding!

Or maybe it was an FFA "words I hate" thing or something that was an in-joke around here.

I remember the word infiltrating the language, once hated it, and now realize its potential and usefulness. I have no problem with it. But it still makes me cringe because of the relentless imagery over content that caused its birth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/roger-goodell-step-down

he new rule is another example of a commissioner who is obsessed with hard-and-fast rules that are only created immediately after controversy, but do not allow for nuance or malleability in the face of new evidence.

Roger Goodell’s policy on drugs—perhaps the one that requires the most flexibility in its interpretation—is just as rigid and unbudging as all of the rest. It is a policy that suspends a player the same for taking anabolic steroids, or crack cocaine, or heroin, or marijuana, or fertility pills, or unprescribed Sudafed.

It is a policy that punished Robert Mathis for taking a prescribed pill that would help him and his wife conceive a child. His wife could not take fertility pills because it would put her health in danger. The couple was having trouble conceiving. After taking the pills, Mathis and his wife had twins.

Robert Mathis was suspended for four games by Roger Goodell.

Josh Gordon and Daryl Washington were banished for the entire 2014 NFL season for testing positive for marijuana.

Ray Rice, who knocked his wife unconscious and, in his own words, “owns (his) actions,” will be suspended for two games.

Still waiting on any evidence that the pressure Goodell is under has impacted, IN ANY WAY, Josh Gordon's situation.

so sorry you can't put 2 and 2 together on this and see where it may have sway and stoke the flames pushing for Goodell to resign. So far, he has appeared tone deaf, but it is still a valid consideration and fact that cannot be ignored

Under the current policy, Gordon was supposed to be suspended for a year. He is.

Under the new policy, Gordon is (by most reports) supposed to be suspended for 10 games. The report is that he will be suspended.......10 games.

As has been reported, but no final agreement exists, and it continues to not exist

So, if the pressure Goodell is facing b/c of the Rice situation is impacting his handling of Gordon, how come Gordon is getting EXACTLY the prescribed punishment under the current policy, and EXACTLY the reported prescribed punishment under the reported new policy? If the pressure from the Rice situation had any impact on Gordon's situation, shouldn't there be something we could point to and say "see, Gordon got more leniency, b/c Goodell was trying to get some good press because of the Rice fiasco!"

no new policy exists yet...you keep quoting things from a non-existent agreement as facts. I still think there's good chance this agreement will be tabled until next year.

Why can't we see anything like that?

see above
So, Goodell might be forced to resign, and the potential policy isn't final/official, and a 10 game suspension is only a report, right now.

HOW DO ANY OF THESE THINGS SHOW THAT THE RICE SITUATION HAD ANY INFLUENCE ON THE GORDON SITUATION? Because that is the whole point here. That's the Gordon-ite argument you decided to comment on, so answer that question, and stop pointing out things that aren't relevant.

If a new drug policy gets tabled, Gordon is still suspended 1year, & Rice situation had no impact.

If a new policy is agreed to, reports are Gordon's suspension will be 10 games, per the new policy, & Rice's situation had no impact.

If Goodell resigns,Gordon is still suspended 1 year, & Rice's situation had no impact.

So, again, how did. Rice's situation impact Gordon's situation? Because all you've done is show it has impacted Goodell, bit that is not the topic of this thread, Josh Gordon is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Debating the impact of Rice on Gordon's suspension? What is this, July?

I made the mistake of using that as an example of how many of the pro-Gordon crowd in this thread ignored logic, facts, and reality when trying to come with any hope that Gordon would play this year.

My fault for expecting that now that this has been 100% proven false that it wouldn't be debated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flash Gordon (@JOSH_GORDONXII)

9/15/14, 8:13 PM

Back to Cleveland.. How cold is it? ❄️

Download the official Twitter app here

Sent from my iPhone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or maybe it was an FFA "words I hate" thing or something that was an in-joke around here.

It's not bad because it's on the list. It's on the list because it's bad.

Saying that something has bad optics, instead of saying that it looks bad, is like telling someone to interface with his partner (instead of talking to her), or to utilize normal English (instead of using it).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if Gordon is less tradeable now that there have been a rash of injuries in the past week? IR roster spots will get filled up. Fantasy owners will get scared and wonder if they'll sacrifice roster flexibility by adding question mark that probably can't play until week 12. Sad to think the amazing energy of this whole thread ends not with a bang but a whimper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the drug policy, NFL/NFLPA announcement of agreement to terms could come down at any time. ...

... Remember, that the policy won't be completely finished for a week or two, as lawyers work through final language, and write the deal.

so that means that it will have almost no effect on Welker?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if Gordon is less tradeable now that there have been a rash of injuries in the past week? IR roster spots will get filled up. Fantasy owners will get scared and wonder if they'll sacrifice roster flexibility by adding question mark that probably can't play until week 12. Sad to think the amazing energy of this whole thread ends not with a bang but a whimper.

.

It won't bang until his first TD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Week 12 is a disaster. I would not have bid 958 in the FFPC league if I thought he wouldn't be available until week 12. Oh well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of stopped tracking this once the 10 game suspension came out, have a missed something?:

"Good morning, let's get in shape.. #6games #probowl ?"

6 games?

"Back to Cleveland.. How cold is it?"

Does this mean he, for some reason, is allowed back with the team? Why else would someone want to go to Cleveland.

Taken from Gordon's twitter.

Edited by SengerCJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When searching for a trading partner I try to find the motivations of other owners. I can't trade him to a team who needs help at WR because they need the help now. Can't trade with someone who's team is beat up for the same reason. Probably need to look for a team that has good depth at WR who feels like they can afford the risk in return for a lottery ticket starting in week 12.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.