Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Bamac

FBG Apps Beta Tester
  • Content Count

    1,558
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Bamac

  1. Everyone in this thread seems to have 5 top 5 WRs :excited:

    :goodposting:

    Personally i have never seen wr/wr drafting work at winning a league, and in this thread seems some people when wr/wr/wr. reminds me of the talking heads that are always excited about going heavy wr early, then half way through the season they are out of it because their rbs are waiver wire fodder while streaming qbs.

    *every hipster podcast* "Really like demaryius this week and playing him alongside julio and jeffrey in one of my leagues." "Oh yeah how are you doing in that league?" "Last place in points with 2 wins but man my team is so good it makes no sense..." lol

    I'm 9-1, first in points. Starting RBs: Ryan Mathews and Theo Riddick. Other notables: Pierre Thomas, Jonathan Stewart.
  2. What a bad deal for the Browns if he gets 10 games.

    They'll probably be out of playoff contention by then and they'll lose a year off his rookie contract.

    Do they lose a year off the contract? I thought he had to be eligible for eight weeks.

    play 6 games, you get credited for the year

    Cool. Don't know where I got 8.
  3. I'll temper the enthusiasm by saying you guys are drawing some conclusions from the Feely video that he did not specifically say. And he says "the end of last season who tested positive". So we still don't know where Gordon will fall in all of this, since he was popped last season and suspended a month ago. How does "retroactively" effect Gordon? That's still up in the air imo.

    Agreed.
  4. So he gets a week or two in before his court appearance?

    Gordon was due to appear in Wake County court Tuesday on charges of driving while impaired and speeding. Attorney Trey Fitzhugh says Gordon had a waiver to miss the pretrial appearance and the case is continued until Nov. 18.

    Not laughing at you, but

    :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

    Cases take forever when both sides want them to move quickly. With Gordon dragging his heels, no chance there's a result on the DWI in 2014.

  5. ESPN's Adam Schefter reports Josh Gordon's suspension is expected to be reduced to eight games once the new drug policy is approved as easily as Friday afternoon.

    It's exactly what FOX Sports' Mike Garafolo reported Thursday evening. We'd obviously expect Gordon to qualify for time already served, so he'd likely be back for Week 9 against the Bucs. Owners who can afford to stash Gordon at the end of their bench would have him in time for a few weeks of the regular season and the fantasy playoffs. We hope to have final word sometime Friday.

    Source: Adam Schefter on Twitter

    Browns have week 4 bye, so wouldn't be back til week 10. Rotoworld on top of it, as usual.
  6. Pretty sure its not breaking any federal laws if you use it in a state where its legal. There, now you know. :cool:

    Pretty sure you're wrong.

    Feel free to follow up with the law. I am confident that even outside those states the laws only refer to possession, sale, cultivation, and sale of paraphernalia. Just get us the facts though and educate everyone.

    http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/21usc/844.htm

    21 u.s.c. section 844.

    Thanks for doing the legwork.
  7. How can we make this Ray Rice public outcry thing go away?...Hey I got it, lets go easy on illegal drug users.....Brilliant!

    You do realize its legal in several states.

    When the Feds legalize it let me know.

    Pretty sure its not breaking any federal laws if you use it in a state where its legal. There, now you know. :cool:
    Pretty sure you're wrong.
  8. uh oh

    Mary Kay Cabot@MaryKayCabot

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

    11:30am · 9 Sep 2014 · Twitter Web

    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.
    Those people are victims of prohibition.
  9. So, the arbitrator, he was someone the NFL hires routinely for this sort of thing right? And the league hired him, not Josh Gordon? And he was paid a sum of money by the NFL and routinely cashes checks for these matters, from the NFL?

    Doesn't sound like it would be hard to create doubts about the arbitrators impartiality. What's the standard of doubt for a TRO? It's pretty low right, in favor of the person requesting it?

    Seems to me if his lawyers are competent, getting a TRO should be easy. The real question is if he'll file for one or not IMO

    Getting a TRO for an arbitration award is not easy. Why would the burden be low, in favor of the person requesting it? There's been an award pursuant to an agreement to arbitrate, and the standard for overturning that award is quite high.

    Arrrrggghhhh. Now that the p-word has emerged this has gone /thread
    We've covered 2/3 of Webster's. Was a matter of time.
  10. This thread is huge, so apologies if this was already posted:

    http://www.si.com/nfl/2014/08/28/josh-gordon-suspension-browns-nfl-legal-options

    Michael McCann lays out the legal arguments on both sides. He claims "Gordon would need to convince a judge of four basic points, none of which would be easy to show."

    Probably win full trial

    Suspension would cause irreparable harm

    Injunction would not harm NFL more than it helps Gordon

    Injunction would advance the public's interest

    1 and 2 seem hard to prove. 3 seems hard to prove, but less so than 1 and 2 IMO. Not really sure what would constitute meeting 4.

    2 -- assuming it's not conceded -- would be one of the easiest showings ever made in a courtroom. A first-year law student at University of Phoenix Online would have no trouble winning that one.
    How so? If he ultimately won the lawsuit, he could win damages in the amount of his salary for the year.
    He's saying that it would be an easy argument for Gordon's side to show irreparable harm. Gordon stands to lose a year's salary, and will be one more year further removed from free agency. He can never earn that money back. His career will be cut one year short. Thus irreparable harm.

    I understand what he is saying. However monetary and contractual interests are quite reparable. He can win that exact amount of money (or more) from the NFL in a future lawsuit. He could also be granted one additional year towards free agency if he were to win the lawsuit.
    Correct. It's not the salary loss that's irreparable. It's the lost playing time, which causes unquantifiable damage to Gordon's future earnings -- both salary and endorsements.

    See http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/4/Public/News/Orders/Williams_v_NFL_(TRO)_filed_7-9-09_Judge_Larson_.pdf

  11. This thread is huge, so apologies if this was already posted:

    http://www.si.com/nfl/2014/08/28/josh-gordon-suspension-browns-nfl-legal-options

    Michael McCann lays out the legal arguments on both sides. He claims "Gordon would need to convince a judge of four basic points, none of which would be easy to show."

    Probably win full trial

    Suspension would cause irreparable harm

    Injunction would not harm NFL more than it helps Gordon

    Injunction would advance the public's interest

    1 and 2 seem hard to prove. 3 seems hard to prove, but less so than 1 and 2 IMO. Not really sure what would constitute meeting 4.

    2 -- assuming it's not conceded -- would be one of the easiest showings ever made in a courtroom. A first-year law student at University of Phoenix Online would have no trouble winning that one.
  12. Yeah, I know he was just talking a hypothetical, but just because a state has decriminalized marijuana doesn't mean they're going to make it illegal for employers to not want employees who do it. Will never happen.

    Agree on all points. The only debatable question is whether a state could enforce such a law if it existed. I suspect it could, but it's not obvious.

    This is tangential, but not irrelevant to Gordon, as some have speculated that state law may offer Gordon protections that the league did not afford him. I'm pretty sure that's a misreading of Ohio law, but I can't say I've done enough research to know.

×
×
  • Create New...