Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
gianmarco

***Official Melvin "Flash" Gordon*** Thread of Love

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, tangfoot said:

Bell was unsigned, that's a completely different scenario.  Zeke and Gordon assumed that they had leverage over their franchise due to win-now attitudes.  Zeke was right.  Gordon ####ed with the wrong team, and his agent should have known this going into it.

I know it is different. He could sit out the whole year, the others cannot, and he willingly gave up $14.5M to do it. Elliott and Gordon accepted the risk of heavy fines and missed game checks that add up to significant lost money. It paid off for Elliott. Doesn't look like it will pay off for Gordon, yet he is doing it. So it seems obvious that fines are not a deterrent, which was the point of my post that you responded to here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, iamkoza said:

no reporting on this situation the last couple days.... :tumbleweed: 

There won't be anything new to report until early next week. At that point, either Gordon will return or he won't, either one of which would be news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, iamkoza said:

no reporting on this situation the last couple days.... :tumbleweed: 

at this point he is missing multiple games....he will report when he has to

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2019 at 9:00 AM, Just Win Baby said:
On 9/6/2019 at 7:37 AM, Tool said:

Curious why you say that. I would put 70% chance he comes back week 10, 25% chance week 3-9 and 5% week 2 or 3.

The argument that he needs to report prior to week 9 is explained here. There is also an argument that he needs to report before week 13, explained here. Because it seems to be a gray area, it seems that a smart player (with a smart agent) would take the conservative approach and report no later than prior to week 9. But IMO Gordon and his agent have not shown themselves to be very smart so far, so who knows what he might do.

There is no argument that he needs to return prior to week 10, with 7 games remaining, or after week 10, with 6 games remaining, despite the fact that both of those things have been reported in the media much more often than reporting prior to week 9 or prior to week 13.

The reason he might report sooner than week 9 is obviously money. If he sits out until week 9, he will lose $2.6M, not including preseason fines.

Daniel Popper, the Athletic's Chargers reporter, recently said in an article there that Gordon has to report in time to be eligible to play 6 games. I posted some of this stuff in response, and he responded with this:

Quote

Joey Galloway returned for the final eight weeks in 2000 because he was worried the Seahawks would apply to the commissioner for a two-week roster exemption. If the Seahawks did that, returning with eight weeks remaining would guarantee Galloway would be on full pay status for six games, which logic suggests would be the definition of "completing performance" of a contract. Nowhere in the CBA does it explicitly define what "completing performance" is. But people around the league assume that accruing a season is the equivalent of "completing performance." As you suggested, Gordon does not need to accrue another season to become a free agent, but he does need to complete performance of his contract, or else the contract will toll to 2020. Six games is what he needs to do that, according to precedent. The decision would still be in the hands of an arbitrator, though.

The Chargers bye week this year is in week 12. He says here that Galloway felt compelled to report with 8 games remaining since the team could apply for a two-week roster exemption. Well, the Chargers could also do that, so the same rationale applies to Gordon needing to report with 8 games remaining, i.e., prior to week 9.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2019 at 9:45 AM, Just Win Baby said:

First, they want him to play

Do they want him to play?  He has no choice but to report for half a season.  He will play hard because he will be playing for his next contract.  The Chargers have good replacements who they can audition for next year's potential starting role.  Melvin hasn't usually lasted an entire season so playing half a season is maybe the perfect amount of season for him.  And hopefully he'll be somewhat fresh for the playoffs.  And they will save half of $5.6 million (maybe they will save more including fines?)

 

Edited by Don Hutson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Just Win Baby said:

Daniel Popper, the Athletic's Chargers reporter, recently said in an article there that Gordon has to report in time to be eligible to play 6 games. I posted some of this stuff in response, and he responded with this:

The Chargers bye week this year is in week 12. He says here that Galloway felt compelled to report with 8 games remaining since the team could apply for a two-week roster exemption. Well, the Chargers could also do that, so the same rationale applies to Gordon needing to report with 8 games remaining, i.e., prior to week 9.

I don't think "full pay status" matters in this regard. That's for accruing an accrued season. It's not for tolling. I disagree with that guy's analysis. He's right that the CBA doesn't address the issue, but the CBA is the wrong place to look. The standard player contract is where tolling is addressed. It talks about tolling based on rounding to the nearest whole season. That's 8 games -- whether or not on full-pay status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we now know he shouldn't have held out, he should have just showed up to camp and threatened to kill someone and he could just be cut and free to sign anywhere

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like he may report by week 6-8 according to NFL.com

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000001051750/article/chargers-melvin-gordon-plans-to-report-in-6-to-8-weeks

 

As Gordon owner in 2 leagues I'll actually take that instead of a Bell fiasco last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Devil_Dog said:

Looks like he may report by week 6-8 according to NFL.com

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000001051750/article/chargers-melvin-gordon-plans-to-report-in-6-to-8-weeks

 

As Gordon owner in 2 leagues I'll actually take that instead of a Bell fiasco last year.

This is the most likely outcome, but remember that during the Bell fiasco, there were countless reports similar to this: Bell will report by week 1, week 2, during their bye, by the trade deadline, by week 10, etc.  These reports are, IMO, more about getting clicks than actually reporting solid facts.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Bayhawks said:

This is the most likely outcome, but remember that during the Bell fiasco, there were countless reports similar to this: Bell will report by week 1, week 2, during their bye, by the trade deadline, by week 10, etc.  These reports are, IMO, more about getting clicks than actually reporting solid facts.

Yep totally get it...but I've already conceded that I won't have Gordon for the bulk of the season so if wk 6-8 happens I'll be happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m betting it’s week 10.

they have a late BYE, and one of two scenarios will happen in the meanwhile:

1. The Chargers are winning without Gordon, the backups performing ably as replacements, they decide to bench him until after the BYE because “F that dude”. Why welcome a guy back with open arms who pulled a stunt like that? 

2. The chargers are losing without him & at 2-4, or 2-6 why bother paying him? 

Either way I’m thinking he may not be relevant until after their BYE. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

I’m betting it’s week 10.

People everywhere, including the media, keep mentioning Week 10. That's for players who are unsigned (e.g., rookies, players who are franchise-tagged) who need an Accrued Season. That's not Melvin Gordon's situation. He's under contract and he needs to avoid having it tolled. Week 10 has nothing to do with that.

He very likely needs to report by Week 9 so that he's holding out for no more than half a season. He needs to hold out for zero seasons rather than one season, as rounded to the nearest whole season. Otherwise, he's still under contract with the Chargers the following year.

And yes, they will happily welcome him back with open arms whether they are 2-6 or 6-2 or anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

And yes, they will happily welcome him back with open arms whether they are 2-6 or 6-2 or anything else.

 I find that highly unlikely. 

 The title of the world‘s shortest book is, “players who have wronged the chargers and been welcomed back with open arms“

 It sits on the shelf right next to the book titled, “Hall of Famers the 49ers have let play out their careers to graceful endings“

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, rapsheet reporting week 6-8 and using the week 10 deadline. Schefter reporting could last until late November (saying needs to report 30 days before season end). Nothing like having the two top reporters conflict each other

Edited by iamkoza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iamkoza said:

Wow, rapsheet reporting week 6-8 and using the week 10 deadline. Schefter reporting could last until late November (saying needs to report 30 days before season end). Nothing like having the two top reporters conflict each other

And they're both wrong. The Week 10 deadline is simply inapplicable to players who are already under contract. The 30-days-before-the-season-ends deadline is applicable. It's from Section XVII, Section 17.13 of the NFL Constitution, which states that players on the Did Not Report list cannot be reinstated within the last 30 days of the regular season. So Gordon definitely can't report after that point.

But that doesn't mean that he can report anytime before that point. I mean, technically he can, but unless he avoids having his contract tolled, he'd still be under contract with the Chargers again the following year. So he could report in Week 12, but it probably wouldn't do him any good in his quest to become a free agent.

The relevant language on that point comes from his player contract. The standard contract (see Appendix C) contains a paragraph that says:

Quote

Unless this contract specifically provides otherwise, if Player becomes a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or any other country, or retires from professional football as an active player, or otherwise fails or refuses to perform his services under this contract, then this contract will be tolled between the date of Player’s induction into the Armed Forces, or his retirement, or his failure or refusal to perform, and the later date of his return to professional football. During the period this contract is tolled, Player will not be entitled to any compensation or benefits. On Player’s return to professional football, the term of this contract will be extended for a period of time equal to the number of seasons (to the nearest multiple of one) remaining at the time the contract was tolled. The right of renewal, if any, contained in this contract will remain in effect until the end of any such extended term.

There are a few different ways to read that, but one that's kind of obvious is that he shouldn't miss more than half a season. His contract is tolled while he's away. If he stays away for more than half a season, he'll still have at least a half of season left on his contract when he returns, which means his contract will be extended a full season.

There are other possible ways to read that, but missing more than half a season is a risk not worth taking, IMO.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His trade value has tanked.  Earlier this week I was offered Gordon for Singletary and Funchess in a dynasty leage.  And I didn't even really consider it even though Singletary isn't a starter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

And they're both wrong. The Week 10 deadline is simply inapplicable to players who are already under contract. The 30-days-before-the-season-ends deadline is applicable. It's from Section XVII, Section 17.13 of the NFL Constitution, which states that players on the Did Not Report list cannot be reinstated within the last 30 days of the regular season. So Gordon definitely can't report after that point.

But that doesn't mean that he can report anytime before that point. I mean, technically he can, but unless he avoids having his contract tolled, he'd still be under contract with the Chargers again the following year. So he could report in Week 12, but it probably wouldn't do him any good in his quest to become a free agent.

The relevant language comes from his player contract. The standard contract (see Appendix C) contains a paragraph that says:

There are a few different ways to read that, but one that's kind of obvious is that he shouldn't miss more than half a season. His contract is tolled while he's away. If he stays away for more than half a season, he'll still have at least a half of season left on his contract when he returns, which means his contract will be extended a full season.

There are other possible ways to read that, but missing more than half a season is a risk not worth taking, IMO.

Contracts don't work game to game, they are seasonal.  If he plays at all he'll fulfill the 2019 contract.   Otherwise every holdout would toll into the following season by however many games they held out, and it just doesn't work that way.

However, your link to the Constitution section 17.13 provided the most clear reference I have ever seen, and it's more than just 30 days:

All players in the categories of Reserve/Retired, Reserve/Did Not Report,and Reserve/Veteran Free Agent Asked to Re-Sign will continue to beprohibited from being reinstated in the last 30 days of the regular season.  Additionally, no player in such category will be reinstated between the trading deadline of the applicable season and the normal 30-day deadline unless the club initiates the reinstatement request and the Commissioner approves it.

So, after the trade deadline, he's not guaranteed to be reinstated.  First the Chargers have to request it and if they really want to they can just stick it to him.  So it looks like trade deadline is his safest bet.

Edited by Hankmoody

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Hankmoody said:

Otherwise every holdout would toll into the following season by however many games they held out, and it just doesn't work that way.

That's not what the standard contract says. The tolling is rounded to the nearest full season.

No player under contract has ever held out more than eight games, so we don't know what would happen if someone tried it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Hankmoody said:

So, after the trade deadline, he's not guaranteed to be reinstated.

This is correct, not guaranteed, but the general assumption is that the Commissioner would reinstate him (at the team's request).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curious if the latest injury to Hunter Henry and Mike Williams questionable knee might give Melvin some extra leverage.

They clearly need playmakers. 

Lets hope the Chargers FO recognizes this and gives him a decent offer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ray Barboni said:

Curious if the latest injury to Hunter Henry and Mike Williams questionable knee might give Melvin some extra leverage.

They clearly need playmakers. 

Lets hope the Chargers FO recognizes this and gives him a decent offer. 

Melvin's leverage went to zero after the Austin Ekeler show last weekend. They are not giving him any offers whatsoever.

He's just throwing away paychecks at this point.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patrick the Pirate said:

Melvin's leverage went to zero after the Austin Ekeler show last weekend. They are not giving him any offers whatsoever.

He's just throwing away paychecks at this point.

Disagree.

Loosing Henry isn’t such a big deal, but it’s still a factor. The potential Mike Williams knee issue just means they are loosing another pass catcher/play maker.

Maybe I’m trying to be too optimistic on the Gordon front. But it just seems logical that he gained some leverage with the latest injuries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ray Barboni said:

Disagree.

Loosing Henry isn’t such a big deal, but it’s still a factor. The potential Mike Williams knee issue just means they are loosing another pass catcher/play maker.

Maybe I’m trying to be too optimistic on the Gordon front. But it just seems logical that he gained some leverage with the latest injuries.

They aren't negotiating a contract any more. Why would they?  He's under contract. Has to come back in 7 weeks. And they only have to pay him 1/2 his salary.

His best chance is to talk to the Bucs or 49ers. But I would imagine they have little interest in signing him for $13m a year for 3+ years. If he hasn't found out his market is right in line with what the Chargers offered him at this point, he's stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Ray Barboni said:

Maybe I’m trying to be too optimistic on the Gordon front.

Yes, you are.

40 minutes ago, Ray Barboni said:

But it just seems logical that he gained some leverage with the latest injuries.

No, it doesn't. That isn't logical at all. The Chargers still have 2 more RBs they like who haven't even played yet (Pope and Newsome). Even if Ekeler or Jackson got hurt, it wouldn't provide Gordon with leverage.

Gordon has zero leverage. He got bad advice, yet he continues to follow it. He should fire his agent, report, and try to work himself back into the starting/primary role. It is no given he will get it back. IMO the Chargers would have lost if most of the RB touches in Sunday's game went to Gordon, and I hope that is not lost on the coaching staff.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Just Win Baby said:

Yes, you are.

No, it doesn't. That isn't logical at all. The Chargers still have 2 more RBs they like who haven't even played yet (Pope and Newsome). Even if Ekeler or Jackson got hurt, it wouldn't provide Gordon with leverage.

Gordon has zero leverage. He got bad advice, yet he continues to follow it. He should fire his agent, report, and try to work himself back into the starting/primary role. It is no given he will get it back. IMO the Chargers would have lost if most of the RB touches in Sunday's game went to Gordon, and I hope that is not lost on the coaching staff.

I wonder if it is really bad advice. I mean if he gets hurt he loses a lot of guaranteed money I would think. So maybe sitting out is a rational decision...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Just Win Baby said:

Yes, you are.

No, it doesn't. That isn't logical at all. The Chargers still have 2 more RBs they like who haven't even played yet (Pope and Newsome). Even if Ekeler or Jackson got hurt, it wouldn't provide Gordon with leverage.

Gordon has zero leverage. He got bad advice, yet he continues to follow it. He should fire his agent, report, and try to work himself back into the starting/primary role. It is no given he will get it back. IMO the Chargers would have lost if most of the RB touches in Sunday's game went to Gordon, and I hope that is not lost on the coaching staff.

I don’t think it changes anything in regards to paying Melvin but I do think it’s highly unlikely that they share that opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Tool said:

I wonder if it is really bad advice. I mean if he gets hurt he loses a lot of guaranteed money I would think. So maybe sitting out is a rational decision...

Everything depends on his market next year. If he can't find a deal as good as what the Chargers were offering and he's throwing out $2M+ this year then it's terrible advice that he got.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Patrick the Pirate said:

Everything depends on his market next year. If he can't find a deal as good as what the Chargers were offering and he's throwing out $2M+ this year then it's terrible advice that he got.

 

True, but did any details of the Chargers come out, all I remember hearing was 10 M / year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Just Win Baby said:

Yes, you are.

No, it doesn't. That isn't logical at all. The Chargers still have 2 more RBs they like who haven't even played yet (Pope and Newsome). Even if Ekeler or Jackson got hurt, it wouldn't provide Gordon with leverage.

Gordon has zero leverage. He got bad advice, yet he continues to follow it. He should fire his agent, report, and try to work himself back into the starting/primary role. It is no given he will get it back. IMO the Chargers would have lost if most of the RB touches in Sunday's game went to Gordon, and I hope that is not lost on the coaching staff.

😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ray Barboni said:

Maybe I’m trying to be too optimistic on the Gordon front. But it just seems logical that he gained some leverage with the latest injuries.

Depends.

He gained a lot of leverage if he can start at WR or TE. Of course, he really has the MOST leverage if he can start at LT. If he can play S better than Derwin James then he has some pretty strong leverage as well.

The problem is Ekeler has just played about as well as Gordon has every played at RB..... so if Gordon plans on playing RB I think he's actually LOST leverage.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Weebs210 said:

😂

Laugh all you want. Gordon has never in his career displayed vision like Ekeler did on Sunday. Zero chance Gordon scores on that pass Ekeler took for a 55 yard TD.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Just Win Baby said:

Laugh all you want. Gordon has never in his career displayed vision like Ekeler did on Sunday. Zero chance Gordon scores on that pass Ekeler took for a 55 yard TD.

Melvin Gordon, if you'll pardon me butting in, was never that great a back but for volume, it seemed to me. Ekeler and Jackson are doing just fine in his stead. That's a layman's outsider's two cents, and has nothing to do with traditionally siding with mgmt/player during labor negotiations. I usually side with mgmt in RB situations because the RBs are generally wrong about their own worth, fair or not.

Edited by rockaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Just Win Baby said:

Yes, you are.

No, it doesn't. That isn't logical at all. The Chargers still have 2 more RBs they like who haven't even played yet (Pope and Newsome). Even if Ekeler or Jackson got hurt, it wouldn't provide Gordon with leverage.

Gordon has zero leverage. He got bad advice, yet he continues to follow it. He should fire his agent, report, and try to work himself back into the starting/primary role. It is no given he will get it back. IMO the Chargers would have lost if most of the RB touches in Sunday's game went to Gordon, and I hope that is not lost on the coaching staff.

Explain your logic here. What are you basing this statement on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tool said:

I wonder if it is really bad advice. I mean if he gets hurt he loses a lot of guaranteed money I would think. So maybe sitting out is a rational decision...

What is the chance, on a per-game basis, that a starting running back will suffer an injury that affects his future earnings? ACL tears don't seem to have a long-term effect anymore. It would have to be a torn Achilles (and even that's not as bad as it once was) or a compound fracture or dislocated ankle or a life-changing concussion or something along those lines.

There are 512 RB starts each season. How often does a running back suffer an injury so bad that it affects his future earnings? It happened to Robert Edwards 20 years ago, but that wasn't even during an NFL game. It happened to Napolean McCallum 25 years ago. Off the top of my head, I can't think of other injuries to RBs that have been career-ending (since ACL reconstructions have become routine). If we expand to non-RBs, Alex Smith counts, as does Joe Theismann. Darryl Stingley, Dennis Byrd... (But expanding to non-RBs makes the denominator grow as well.)

I'm sure I'm missing some, but let's say there have been 10 examples in the last 20 years. That's about a 0.1% chance per game.

So skipping a game for $330,000 would be worthwhile if Gordon had a 0.1% chance of having his future earnings reduced by ... $330 million.

Even if we bump it up to a 0.5% chance per game, the risk to his future earnings would have to be over $60 million to justify sitting out.

I don't think that's realistic. In purely monetary terms, I think it's pretty clearly -EV to miss games for $330,000 each.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

There are 512 RB starts each season. How often does a running back suffer an injury so bad that it affects his future earnings? It happened to Robert Edwards 20 years ago, but that wasn't even during an NFL game. It happened to Napolean McCallum 25 years ago. Off the top of my head, I can't think of other injuries to RBs that have been career-ending (since ACL reconstructions have become routine). If we expand to non-RBs, Alex Smith counts, as does Joe Theismann. Darryl Stingley, Dennis Byrd... (But expanding to non-RBs makes the denominator grow as well.)

I'm sure I'm missing some, but let's say there have been 10 examples in the last 20 years. That's about a 0.1% chance per game.

Bo Jackson and Jahvid Best also had career-ending injuries. Plus there are many other guys who suffered major injuries, then made partial comebacks, only to be forced into retirement (Terrell Davis, Priest Holmes, Jamaal Charles).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

Bo Jackson and Jahvid Best also had career-ending injuries. Plus there are many other guys who suffered major injuries, then made partial comebacks, only to be forced into retirement (Terrell Davis, Priest Holmes, Jamaal Charles).

Good call. Counting all of them gets us to six RBs (including Robert Edwards), just over halfway to the 10 I assumed in order to reach a 0.1% chance per game (and still well short of the 50 it would take to get to 0.5%).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Good call. Counting all of them gets us to six RBs (including Robert Edwards), just over halfway to the 10 I assumed in order to reach a 0.1% chance per game (and still well short of the 50 it would take to get to 0.5%).

Well, Gale Sayers counts, right? ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ShamrockPride said:

Explain your logic here. What are you basing this statement on?

I'm basing it on the following:

  1. Ekeler and Jackson combined for 115 rushing yards, 63 of which were yards after contact. I don't think Gordon would have been as successful after contact.
  2. Ekeler and Jackson combined for 100 receiving yards and 117 yards after the catch. I don't think Gordon would have been as successful after the catch.
  3. Ekeler and Jackson combined to force 10 missed tackles. I don't think Gordon would have forced that many.

I believe all of these things because I believe both Ekeler and Jackson have better vision than Gordon. I realize many will disagree, and I'm fine with that.

I suppose they might not have lost with Gordon getting most of those touches. But I believe they would have gotten less production from those touches in that case, so, to the extent that production was needed to win, it would have had to have been made up elsewhere.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is also worth noting that over the 2018 and 2019 seasons to date, the Chargers are now 5-0 without Gordon and 9-5 with him.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2019 at 11:04 AM, Hankmoody said:

His trade value has tanked.  Earlier this week I was offered Gordon for Singletary and Funchess in a dynasty leage.  And I didn't even really consider it even though Singletary isn't a starter.

I was just offered Diggs for him.  Think I have to cash out

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Skeletore Eh said:

I was just offered Diggs for him.  Think I have to cash out

Especially if Diggs instantly upgrades your WR core, I’d hit accept pronto!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Skeletore Eh said:

I was just offered Diggs for him.  Think I have to cash out

That seems steep.

As an Ekeler and Jackson owner, I'm looking to acquire Gordon, but wouldn't pay that much for a guy that may not hit my lineup till November.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, [scooter] said:

Bo Jackson and Jahvid Best also had career-ending injuries. Plus there are many other guys who suffered major injuries, then made partial comebacks, only to be forced into retirement (Terrell Davis, Priest Holmes, Jamaal Charles).

I think this is a large part of what is going on and is really the only rational reason Gordon is going this far.

Last season by most measures Gordon was having his most efficient season as a runner/receiver. That is he was BEFORE his latest injury. After week 12 last season he rushed 22 times for 83 yards, and had 6 catches for 37 yards in the regular season. Then in two post game appearances he rushed 26 times for 55 yards, and had 2 catches for 14 yards. If anyone actually watched the four games Gordon played after week 12 they would admit he just didn't look like the same guy.

If Gordon thinks that he may never return to 2018 week 12 health again then this holdout makes all the sense in the world and I would do the same thing. Or if he doesn't think he had much of a chance to stand up to the rigors of an entire season this holdout again makes complete sense. Ideally he gets his big payday before the middle of the season but worst case scenario for Gordon is he comes back in the middle of the season and plays some sort of RBBC due to the acrimony he has with the chargers. Based on the trade interest the chargers reportedly received I don't honestly think any NFL team is going to give Gordon the contract he wants but this strategy at least hides from the rest of the league that Gordon may not think he could make it through another season with a full work load even if he wanted to.

The big problem Gordon has is Ekeler with a slightly expanded role doesn't look much different to me than Gordon has the past three seasons. And Ekeler looks like a much better player than Gordon since week 12 last season. I don't mean by a small margin, either. As [scooter] points out there is a long list of guys that include Terrell Davis, Priest Holmes, and Jamaal Charles that all thought they could come back from one last injury to be bell-cow RB's...... but they couldn't. Keep in mind Gordon has never EVER been in the class of those types of players so a much smaller drop-off could completely torpedo his career.

I don't wish that upon Gordon, but if he believed that this was what was happening with his body then his actions make a lot more sense.

 

Edited by BoltBacker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe there are a lot of new Ekeler owners in this thread.  Sure, he looks good in 1 game.  Do you think Ekeler is going to make it through the full season getting that amount of carries?  I dont.  He is a great change of pace guy, but he is no Gordon.  If he isn't hurt, Gordon is much better than either of his backups.  Maybe not 10 million better, and that is the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, plymkr said:

Do you think Ekeler is going to make it through the full season getting that amount of carries?  I dont.  

I don’t doubt you believe that but it’s really based on nothing. How could anyone possibly know that? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Skeletore Eh said:

I was just offered Diggs for him.  Think I have to cash out

A teams wr2 who just threw the ball 10 times total week 1. Hard pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dr. Octopus said:

I don’t doubt you believe that but it’s really based on nothing. How could anyone possibly know that? 

You are correct. I do believe that. I had Ekeler last year.  I watched. My own vision of the talent is all that I have. I cant predict an injury, but in my eye test, Gordon was definitely  a better RB.  If I can't trust my own analysis, I dont deserve to win.  Most people regurgitate what they read.  I might win that way if I get lucky...usually not in my experience.  Just my thoughts.  I'm just one more opinion on a message board, lol.

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.