WR Josh Gordon, KC (6 Viewers)

[Half in the bag]

There was a MUCH better case against OJ.

Obviously, I mean unless an eye witness comes forward who says they saw Gordon toking away on a fatty there's always a shadow of a doubt. No shadow with OJ.

Goodell is getting too wrapped up in the discipline for weed users in the offseason. Give it a rest man, let 'em smoke in offseason for Pete's sake

FREE JOSH GORDON!!!

 

[tomthumb33333]

For what its worth this was just posted.

​

-- No Settlement Talks for Josh Gordon Yet --
Thu Aug 7, 2014 --from FFMastermind.com

NBC Sports reports Cleveland Browns WR Josh Gordon’s suspension will last for a full calendar year or not at all, if his appeal eventually is resolved with a ruling from hearing officer Harold Henderson. If the NFL and NFLPA get together and craft a settlement, Gordon’s suspension could last for less than a calendar year. Even if the suspension is reduced to 15 games, that would allow Gordon to rejoin the team for the 2015 offseason. As it now stands, a full-year suspension would keep Gordon away from the team until, at the earliest, the brink of the 2015 preseason. For the suspension to be anything other than all or nothing, an agreement has to be reached. Before an agreement can be reached, negotiations must occur. According to a source with knowledge of the situation, that hasn’t happened yet.

 

[cstu]

For what its worth this was just posted.

​

-- No Settlement Talks for Josh Gordon Yet --

Thu Aug 7, 2014 --from FFMastermind.com

NBC Sports reports Cleveland Browns WR Josh Gordon’s suspension will last for a full calendar year or not at all, if his appeal eventually is resolved with a ruling from hearing officer Harold Henderson. If the NFL and NFLPA get together and craft a settlement, Gordon’s suspension could last for less than a calendar year. Even if the suspension is reduced to 15 games, that would allow Gordon to rejoin the team for the 2015 offseason. As it now stands, a full-year suspension would keep Gordon away from the team until, at the earliest, the brink of the 2015 preseason. For the suspension to be anything other than all or nothing, an agreement has to be reached. Before an agreement can be reached, negotiations must occur. According to a source with knowledge of the situation, that hasn’t happened yet.

"15 and 3/4 games. That's my final offer"

/Rosenhaus

 

[ghostguy123]

For what its worth this was just posted.

​

-- No Settlement Talks for Josh Gordon Yet --

Thu Aug 7, 2014 --from FFMastermind.com

NBC Sports reports Cleveland Browns WR Josh Gordon’s suspension will last for a full calendar year or not at all, if his appeal eventually is resolved with a ruling from hearing officer Harold Henderson. If the NFL and NFLPA get together and craft a settlement, Gordon’s suspension could last for less than a calendar year. Even if the suspension is reduced to 15 games, that would allow Gordon to rejoin the team for the 2015 offseason. As it now stands, a full-year suspension would keep Gordon away from the team until, at the earliest, the brink of the 2015 preseason. For the suspension to be anything other than all or nothing, an agreement has to be reached. Before an agreement can be reached, negotiations must occur. According to a source with knowledge of the situation, that hasn’t happened yet.

"15 and 3/4 games. That's my final offer"

/Rosenhaus

Amazingly, that would be wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy better than a full year/indefinite.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

A full year from today or the next 2 weeks would REALLY suck

 

[Dr. Octopus]

For what its worth this was just posted.

​

-- No Settlement Talks for Josh Gordon Yet --

Thu Aug 7, 2014 --from FFMastermind.com

NBC Sports reports Cleveland Browns WR Josh Gordon’s suspension will last for a full calendar year or not at all, if his appeal eventually is resolved with a ruling from hearing officer Harold Henderson. If the NFL and NFLPA get together and craft a settlement, Gordon’s suspension could last for less than a calendar year. Even if the suspension is reduced to 15 games, that would allow Gordon to rejoin the team for the 2015 offseason. As it now stands, a full-year suspension would keep Gordon away from the team until, at the earliest, the brink of the 2015 preseason. For the suspension to be anything other than all or nothing, an agreement has to be reached. Before an agreement can be reached, negotiations must occur. According to a source with knowledge of the situation, that hasn’t happened yet.

"15 and 3/4 games. That's my final offer"

/Rosenhaus

Amazingly, that would be wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy better than a full year/indefinite.

For Gordon and Rosenhaus, it sure would.

 

[Banger]

not that it means anything but what do people that have followed this situation closely think the probability is that he gets a full year vs. full exonoration?

Having a tough time benchmarking....I'd put it at a coin flip right now... maybe a little more towards being suspended the full year...55/45 that he'll be out for the year.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

not that it means anything but what do people that have followed this situation closely think the probability is that he gets a full year vs. full exonoration?

There's about 60 pages of back and forth on this.

My guess is he gets the full 16 games based on all available evidence. Of course I don't know if Suh and his experts made any kind of compelling case against the voracity of the testing procedure itself. If they can discredit it, then he can/should walk.

If they are relying on second hand smoke or the "low threshold" argument, I don't see that being persuasive, which means that since he's in Stage 3 he gets the mandated indefinite suspension for this failed drug test.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Florio just now...

Browns receiver Josh Gordon’s suspension will last for a full calendar year or not at all, if his appeal eventually is resolved with a ruling from hearing officer Harold Henderson. If the NFL and NFLPA get together and craft a settlement, Gordon’s suspension could last for less than a calendar year.

[snip]

For the suspension to be anything other than all or nothing, an agreement has to be reached. Before an agreement can be reached, negotiations must occur. Per a source with knowledge of the situation, that hasn’t happened yet.

So in other words......We are right back to where we started...He may get a year he may get off, or he may get a reduced suspension...Boy I'm glad Florio cleared that up.

 

[Ojaays]

not that it means anything but what do people that have followed this situation closely think the probability is that he gets a full year vs. full exonoration?

There's about 60 pages of back and forth on this.

My guess is he gets the full 16 games based on all available evidence. Of course I don't know if Suh and his experts made any kind of compelling case against the voracity of the testing procedure itself. If they can discredit it, then he can/should walk.

If they are relying on second hand smoke or the "low threshold" argument, I don't see that being persuasive, which means that since he's in Stage 3 he gets the mandated indefinite suspension for this failed drug test.

I'll say he gets zero games as I believe Suh poked enough holes in the inconsistencies of the testing procedure.

 

[ROYALWITCHEESE]

Florio just now...

Browns receiver Josh Gordons suspension will last for a full calendar year or not at all, if his appeal eventually is resolved with a ruling from hearing officer Harold Henderson. If the NFL and NFLPA get together and craft a settlement, Gordons suspension could last for less than a calendar year.

[snip]

For the suspension to be anything other than all or nothing, an agreement has to be reached. Before an agreement can be reached, negotiations must occur. Per a source with knowledge of the situation, that hasnt happened yet.

So in other words......We are right back to where we started...He may get a year he may get off, or he may get a reduced suspension...Boy I'm glad Florio cleared that up.

You ever get the feeling these folks are trying to hold onto their jobs, have no good stories or leads, so they have to come up with something?

"Hey I know! I will just restate the Gordon speculation in a new way, that makes it seem like fact, and that makes it seem like there has been a development! Those fantasy football goofs will love it!"

 

[Heatman]

Florio just now...

Browns receiver Josh Gordon’s suspension will last for a full calendar year or not at all, if his appeal eventually is resolved with a ruling from hearing officer Harold Henderson. If the NFL and NFLPA get together and craft a settlement, Gordon’s suspension could last for less than a calendar year.

[snip]

For the suspension to be anything other than all or nothing, an agreement has to be reached. Before an agreement can be reached, negotiations must occur. Per a source with knowledge of the situation, that hasn’t happened yet.

So in other words......We are right back to where we started...He may get a year he may get off, or he may get a reduced suspension...Boy I'm glad Florio cleared that up.

We have always been right where we started. This thread is 116 pages of pure speculation. Even quoting the media who was also speculating. I don't think even the NFL knows for sure. I'm sure they know what they would like to hand down per the CBA but nothing is settled yet. It is really too bad for the Browns because it would be nice for them to know where they stand in all of this. I know they are planning on a year long ban but with both Gordon and Manziel in camp it has to be a major distraction for the other players and coaches.

 

[Bayhawks]

not that it means anything but what do people that have followed this situation closely think the probability is that he gets a full year vs. full exonoration?

There's about 60 pages of back and forth on this.

My guess is he gets the full 16 games based on all available evidence. Of course I don't know if Suh and his experts made any kind of compelling case against the voracity of the testing procedure itself. If they can discredit it, then he can/should walk.

If they are relying on second hand smoke or the "low threshold" argument, I don't see that being persuasive, which means that since he's in Stage 3 he gets the mandated indefinite suspension for this failed drug test.

I'll say he gets zero games as I believe Suh poked enough holes in the inconsistencies of the testing procedure.

PLEASE, as requested by the FBG Moderator, provide some link that Suh did this.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Can we just lock this thread until a decision is made?

 

[Adam Harstad]

not that it means anything but what do people that have followed this situation closely think the probability is that he gets a full year vs. full exonoration?

Having a tough time benchmarking....I'd put it at a coin flip right now... maybe a little more towards being suspended the full year...55/45 that he'll be out for the year.

I can see three reasons why the two sides would not be negotiating.

1) The NFL is very confident in its case and sees no need to throw Gordon a bone.

2) Gordon is very confident in his case and doesn't want to throw the NFL a bone.

3) Neither side is confident, but the NFL does not want to set a precedent that suspensions are subject to negotiation.

Reason #2 strikes me as far less likely than reason #1. The NFL has a lot less at stake than Gordon, which means we should expect Gordon to be more willing to negotiate relative to his confidence level. I mean, if I'm being tried for murder, and I'm 99% sure that it's not going to hold up, I'll at least entertain the idea of negotiations just because the penalty for being wrong is so ridiculously steep for me. I might not accept the negotiations, but you can be sure I'm at least talking with the prosecution and seeing what's on the table.

So for me, it seems that either the NFL believes its case is ironclad, or else the NFL is wary of establishing precedent. The "NFL is confident in its case" explanation seems more intuitive to me (since the league had no problem negotiating with Gordon last year and has never shied away from establishing precedent), but I'm open to either possibility. Given that, I'd probably put the odds at 80+% that Gordon's gone for the year. I'm not ruling out the possibility of a successful appeal out of hand, but I would not want to bet on it unless I was getting some awfully friendly odds.

 

[Anarchy99]

Anyone else get the feeling that if Gordon somehow gets off on a procedural thing that the league would push twice as hard to suspend him for his DUI? That could easily be decided before the season starts and he could be suspended even if he did skate on the drug testing issue.

 

[RUSF18]

Since settlements take place outside all the conduct policies players are subject to, I could see this working out where Gordon sits for a year but is reinstated immediately and this punishment also covers everything pending against him (the DUI, the speeding with weed in the car). So it is truly a fresh start once he comes back, provided he can stay clean the rest of the way.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Anyone else get the feeling that if Gordon somehow gets off on a procedural thing that the league would push twice as hard to suspend him for his DUI? That could easily be decided before the season starts and he could be suspended even if he did skate on the drug testing issue.

See I get the feeling the other way. I think the NFL hopes he gets off on a technicality and you will then see the DUI become a non-issue as he will probably get a pass on that (from North Carolina) as well.

ETA: I also see his mandatory test to be not so mandatory as in "What the NFL don't know, won't hurt them". This whole thing just seems to have been handled in a manner of "we have got a problem, our new wonder boy can't stay clean and now we have Johnny Hot Dog over there and lets face it, it would be good for us (THE NFL) if we could keep them together so how do we make this happen"....Yes I may be a conspiracy theorist.

 

[Anarchy99]

Anyone else get the feeling that if Gordon somehow gets off on a procedural thing that the league would push twice as hard to suspend him for his DUI? That could easily be decided before the season starts and he could be suspended even if he did skate on the drug testing issue.

See I get the feeling the other way. I think the NFL hopes he gets off on a technicality and you will then see the DUI become a non-issue as he will probably get a pass on that (from North Carolina) as well.

Everyone sees things differently. But I think the league views Gordon as having a problem and as a multi time offender. He was kicked off of two college teams for failing drug tests, obviously has failed multiple tests at the NFL level, and continues to either hang with the wrong crowd or continues to break the rules. Granted, he hasn't shattered the rules (and/or the rules might be dumb to begin with), but if I am the league, I don't see a lot of evidence that Gordon has made Herculean attempts to clean up his act. I think that is the biggest issue that the league has (multiple time offender not trying hard to change or show contrition).

So I think if Gordon lucks out and is not suspended, they will get their pound of flesh another way. I also think the league will not take kindly to people trying to beat the system or have the rules not apply to them, so I personally don't think the NFL brass will jump for joy that Gordon was now available to play.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Anyone else get the feeling that if Gordon somehow gets off on a procedural thing that the league would push twice as hard to suspend him for his DUI? That could easily be decided before the season starts and he could be suspended even if he did skate on the drug testing issue.

See I get the feeling the other way. I think the NFL hopes he gets off on a technicality and you will then see the DUI become a non-issue as he will probably get a pass on that (from North Carolina) as well.

Everyone sees things differently. But I think the league views Gordon as having a problem and as a multi time offender. He was kicked off of two college teams for failing drug tests, obviously has failed multiple tests at the NFL level, and continues to either hang with the wrong crowd or continues to break the rules. Granted, he hasn't shattered the rules (and/or the rules might be dumb to begin with), but if I am the league, I don't see a lot of evidence that Gordon has made Herculean attempts to clean up his act. I think that is the biggest issue that the league has (multiple time offender not trying hard to change or show contrition).

So I think if Gordon lucks out and is not suspended, they will get their pound of flesh another way. I also think the league will not take kindly to people trying to beat the system or have the rules not apply to them, so I personally don't think the NFL brass will jump for joy that Gordon was now available to play.

Oh I hear ya...I think Gordon should get full punishment...I'm a believer in the rules are the rules....But I guess it is just a gut feeling, like the winds of change are blowing.

 

[werdnoynek]

Florio just now...

Browns receiver Josh Gordon’s suspension will last for a full calendar year or not at all, if his appeal eventually is resolved with a ruling from hearing officer Harold Henderson. If the NFL and NFLPA get together and craft a settlement, Gordon’s suspension could last for less than a calendar year.

[snip]

For the suspension to be anything other than all or nothing, an agreement has to be reached. Before an agreement can be reached, negotiations must occur. Per a source with knowledge of the situation, that hasn’t happened yet.

So in other words......We are right back to where we started...He may get a year he may get off, or he may get a reduced suspension...Boy I'm glad Florio cleared that up.

We have always been right where we started. This thread is 116 pages of pure speculation. Even quoting the media who was also speculating. I don't think even the NFL knows for sure. I'm sure they know what they would like to hand down per the CBA but nothing is settled yet. It is really too bad for the Browns because it would be nice for them to know where they stand in all of this. I know they are planning on a year long ban but with both Gordon and Manziel in camp it has to be a major distraction for the other players and coaches.

Facts are lazy and facts are late.

I'm still waiting... I'm still waiting...

David Byrne must have written the song for this exact moment in time.. in 1981.

 

[stbugs]

All I know is after the Blackmon debacle, I would have a very hard time drafting Gordon this year if he someone wins the appeal. The odds have to be pretty high that if he wins the appeal that he gets suspended during the year. This is just opinion, but would he take it as a sign that he needs to get his act together or a sign that he can get off with a little lawyer work. He had a few incidents (http://espn.go.com/blog/cleveland-browns/tag/_/name/josh-gordon) this off season that might get swept under the rug, but it sure does signal to me that if he gets off, he will do the same and the league won't tread lightly anymore. He was in the program already before this off season.

ETA: What would his ADP be if he wins his appeal? I would think 2nd round, which is way too risky. It is almost like drafting a guy, knowing he has a 50/50 chance to have an ACL injury in season.

 

[Bayhawks]

Anyone else get the feeling that if Gordon somehow gets off on a procedural thing that the league would push twice as hard to suspend him for his DUI? That could easily be decided before the season starts and he could be suspended even if he did skate on the drug testing issue.

See I get the feeling the other way. I think the NFL hopes he gets off on a technicality and you will then see the DUI become a non-issue as he will probably get a pass on that (from North Carolina) as well.

ETA: I also see his mandatory test to be not so mandatory as in "What the NFL don't know, won't hurt them". This whole thing just seems to have been handled in a manner of "we have got a problem, our new wonder boy can't stay clean and now we have Johnny Hot Dog over there and lets face it, it would be good for us (THE NFL) if we could keep them together so how do we make this happen"....Yes I may be a conspiracy theorist.

1-With regards to "getting a pass from NC," this is unlikely. NC is notoriously tough on drunk driving. It is very difficult to plea-bargain to a lesser charge, and they don't actually require a breathalyzer test to show .08 or higher to convict an individual of DUI. So, the fact that he did blow a .09 is a pretty strong blow against him.

2-I don't think the NFL wants this to just "go away." Gordon has had some well-publicized issues, dating back to college. If they "sweep this under the rug," they are going to have to deal with other NFL players/NFLPA using this case as an argument for why other suspensions (current and future) shouldn't be enforced. Furthermore, if Gordon does have another "incident," the NFL will have to answer questions about why Gordon wasn't dealt with for the DUI charge, when he has failed numerous drug tests, been stopped for speeding with drugs in his car, and been stopped for a DUI. If this DUI was his first "problem," I could see your point, but I don't think that's the case.

 

[Ojaays]

I'm just curious. Does everyone now have to provide links to support their thoughts on this, or am I the only one, because if that's the case there's a lot of missing links .

Many gave chimed in here on their thoughts on the outcome and why, without links.

These are all just our thoughts on what may happen and why, and btw, that's largely what message boards are.

A lot of mention has gone into the the pending DWI charge.

I'm not sure why it's not registering that this is likely not going to be an issue until next year as it will likely get delayed until the end of this season, if not, Josh has the wrong lawyers.

Could josh get a year, yes.

I just don't think he will.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Anyone else get the feeling that if Gordon somehow gets off on a procedural thing that the league would push twice as hard to suspend him for his DUI? That could easily be decided before the season starts and he could be suspended even if he did skate on the drug testing issue.

Ever since Bountygate, Goodell has let the legal process play out before suspending (see: Marshawn Lynch). I suspect that if Gordon skates on the substance policy, his DUI won't come into play until next season.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Could josh get a year, yes.

I just don't think he will.

What odds would you place on each outcome?

 

[Anarchy99]

Anyone else get the feeling that if Gordon somehow gets off on a procedural thing that the league would push twice as hard to suspend him for his DUI? That could easily be decided before the season starts and he could be suspended even if he did skate on the drug testing issue.

Ever since Bountygate, Goodell has let the legal process play out before suspending (see: Marshawn Lynch). I suspect that if Gordon skates on the substance policy, his DUI won't come into play until next season.

But the Sheriff has the ability to invoke the player conduct provisions, so technically he could if he wanted to.

 

[Banger]

not that it means anything but what do people that have followed this situation closely think the probability is that he gets a full year vs. full exonoration?

Having a tough time benchmarking....I'd put it at a coin flip right now... maybe a little more towards being suspended the full year...55/45 that he'll be out for the year.

I can see three reasons why the two sides would not be negotiating.

1) The NFL is very confident in its case and sees no need to throw Gordon a bone.

2) Gordon is very confident in his case and doesn't want to throw the NFL a bone.

3) Neither side is confident, but the NFL does not want to set a precedent that suspensions are subject to negotiation.

Reason #2 strikes me as far less likely than reason #1. The NFL has a lot less at stake than Gordon, which means we should expect Gordon to be more willing to negotiate relative to his confidence level. I mean, if I'm being tried for murder, and I'm 99% sure that it's not going to hold up, I'll at least entertain the idea of negotiations just because the penalty for being wrong is so ridiculously steep for me. I might not accept the negotiations, but you can be sure I'm at least talking with the prosecution and seeing what's on the table.

So for me, it seems that either the NFL believes its case is ironclad, or else the NFL is wary of establishing precedent. The "NFL is confident in its case" explanation seems more intuitive to me (since the league had no problem negotiating with Gordon last year and has never shied away from establishing precedent), but I'm open to either possibility. Given that, I'd probably put the odds at 80+% that Gordon's gone for the year. I'm not ruling out the possibility of a successful appeal out of hand, but I would not want to bet on it unless I was getting some awfully friendly odds.

thanks. I think your logic is solid, unfortunately. I have a keeper deadline of today and I'm thinking I may have to part ways with him. I'll likely drop him for a J. Bell or Gerhart and I'll shoot myself if he gets his suspension overturned (he'll be the #1 pick in the draft). Keepers would be Ellington, AJ Green, Gronk, Cobb and either Gordon or Bell/Gore/Gerhart/C Johnson in the last spot. The decision is so feast or famine and if he wins his appeal my team would be ridiculous receiving wise (but maybe only a 20% chance of that occurring) or I can hedge it out and the team won't be as strong but it's safer.

ugh....

 

[Adam Harstad]

Anyone else get the feeling that if Gordon somehow gets off on a procedural thing that the league would push twice as hard to suspend him for his DUI? That could easily be decided before the season starts and he could be suspended even if he did skate on the drug testing issue.

Ever since Bountygate, Goodell has let the legal process play out before suspending (see: Marshawn Lynch). I suspect that if Gordon skates on the substance policy, his DUI won't come into play until next season.

But the Sheriff has the ability to invoke the player conduct provisions, so technically he could if he wanted to.

He certainly could, and early in his career he eagerly exercised that power. I've just observed that ever since Tagliabue issued that stern rebuke against his quick trigger in the Bountygate case, Roger Goodell has let the process play out before issuing punishment. While he could break from his recent history in the Gordon case, it's important to note that it would, in fact, represent a break from his recent history. Recently Goodell has let the process play out before weighing in, even though he is not technically obligated to do so.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

thanks. I think your logic is solid, unfortunately. I have a keeper deadline of today and I'm thinking I may have to part ways with him. I'll likely drop him for a J. Bell or Gerhart and I'll shoot myself if he gets his suspension overturned (he'll be the #1 pick in the draft). Keepers would be Ellington, AJ Green, Gronk, Cobb and either Gordon or Bell/Gore/Gerhart/C Johnson in the last spot. The decision is so feast or famine and if he wins his appeal my team would be ridiculous receiving wise (but maybe only a 20% chance of that occurring) or I can hedge it out and the team won't be as strong but it's safer.

ugh....

If you trade Bell for the #1 pick in the draft and keep Gordon...

--If Gordon isn't suspended you have Gordon plus the #1 pick

--If Gordon is suspended you have #1 pick

--If you don't make the trade you have Bell

So if the dropoff from Bell to the #1 pick (with Gordon suspended) isn't noticeable you're ahead because you've created the same outcome either way if Gordon is suspended (Bell or the #1 -- roughly the same).

AND you've found a way to come out ahead if Gordon's not suspended.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

thanks. I think your logic is solid, unfortunately. I have a keeper deadline of today and I'm thinking I may have to part ways with him. I'll likely drop him for a J. Bell or Gerhart and I'll shoot myself if he gets his suspension overturned (he'll be the #1 pick in the draft). Keepers would be Ellington, AJ Green, Gronk, Cobb and either Gordon or Bell/Gore/Gerhart/C Johnson in the last spot. The decision is so feast or famine and if he wins his appeal my team would be ridiculous receiving wise (but maybe only a 20% chance of that occurring) or I can hedge it out and the team won't be as strong but it's safer.

ugh....

If you trade Bell for the #1 pick in the draft and keep Gordon...

--If Gordon isn't suspended you have Gordon plus the #1 pick

--If Gordon is suspended you have #1 pick

--If you don't make the trade you have Bell

So if the dropoff from Bell to the #1 pick (with Gordon suspended) isn't noticeable you're ahead because you've created the same outcome either way if Gordon is suspended (Bell or the #1 -- roughly the same).

AND you've found a way to come out ahead if Gordon's not suspended.

I think earlier he said it was Joqie Bell - not sure the guy with the no. 1 pick (even discounted for keepers) is trading it for him. I'm assuming you thought it was L'Veon Bell.

 

[Ojaays]

Could josh get a year, yes.

I just don't think he will.

What odds would you place on each outcome?

For me , my money's all in on him playing.

I will be drafting him in my league even prior to any decision.

He's too good of a talent not to roster if you have a chance.

Like I said , if he gets shutdown, it's no worse than an ACL, I'll take my chances that he plays.

 

[cstu]

not that it means anything but what do people that have followed this situation closely think the probability is that he gets a full year vs. full exonoration?

Having a tough time benchmarking....I'd put it at a coin flip right now... maybe a little more towards being suspended the full year...55/45 that he'll be out for the year.

I can see three reasons why the two sides would not be negotiating.

1) The NFL is very confident in its case and sees no need to throw Gordon a bone.

2) Gordon is very confident in his case and doesn't want to throw the NFL a bone.

3) Neither side is confident, but the NFL does not want to set a precedent that suspensions are subject to negotiation.

Reason #2 strikes me as far less likely than reason #1. The NFL has a lot less at stake than Gordon, which means we should expect Gordon to be more willing to negotiate relative to his confidence level. I mean, if I'm being tried for murder, and I'm 99% sure that it's not going to hold up, I'll at least entertain the idea of negotiations just because the penalty for being wrong is so ridiculously steep for me. I might not accept the negotiations, but you can be sure I'm at least talking with the prosecution and seeing what's on the table.

So for me, it seems that either the NFL believes its case is ironclad, or else the NFL is wary of establishing precedent. The "NFL is confident in its case" explanation seems more intuitive to me (since the league had no problem negotiating with Gordon last year and has never shied away from establishing precedent), but I'm open to either possibility. Given that, I'd probably put the odds at 80+% that Gordon's gone for the year. I'm not ruling out the possibility of a successful appeal out of hand, but I would not want to bet on it unless I was getting some awfully friendly odds.

I agree 100%.

The bolded sums of my view of this from the NFL's perspective. This isn't the Sherman case where a mistake was made in the process (as far as we know). The NFL doesn't want to admit their process is flawed, which they would be doing if they negotiated with Gordon. IMO Gordon has a legitimate argument about the NFL's testing process but I don't believe the NFL is going to let him force their hand in changing it.

 

[Banger]

thanks. I think your logic is solid, unfortunately. I have a keeper deadline of today and I'm thinking I may have to part ways with him. I'll likely drop him for a J. Bell or Gerhart and I'll shoot myself if he gets his suspension overturned (he'll be the #1 pick in the draft). Keepers would be Ellington, AJ Green, Gronk, Cobb and either Gordon or Bell/Gore/Gerhart/C Johnson in the last spot. The decision is so feast or famine and if he wins his appeal my team would be ridiculous receiving wise (but maybe only a 20% chance of that occurring) or I can hedge it out and the team won't be as strong but it's safer.

ugh....

If you trade Bell for the #1 pick in the draft and keep Gordon...

--If Gordon isn't suspended you have Gordon plus the #1 pick

--If Gordon is suspended you have #1 pick

--If you don't make the trade you have Bell

So if the dropoff from Bell to the #1 pick (with Gordon suspended) isn't noticeable you're ahead because you've created the same outcome either way if Gordon is suspended (Bell or the #1 -- roughly the same).

AND you've found a way to come out ahead if Gordon's not suspended.

I think earlier he said it was Joqie Bell - not sure the guy with the no. 1 pick (even discounted for keepers) is trading it for him. I'm assuming you thought it was L'Veon Bell.

you're correct that it's Joquie and no there's no way I can even get a 1st rounder for him.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Could josh get a year, yes.

I just don't think he will.

What odds would you place on each outcome?

For me , my money's all in on him playing.

I will be drafting him in my league even prior to any decision.

He's too good of a talent not to roster if you have a chance.

Like I said , if he gets shutdown, it's no worse than an ACL, I'll take my chances that he plays.

By "my money's all in on him playing", are you saying that you think there is a 100% chance on Josh Gordon winning his appeal and beating his suspension? If not, what percent chance do you think Josh Gordon has of winning his appeal? Do you think he has a 99% chance of winning his appeal? 80%? 50.1%?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I think earlier he said it was Joqie Bell - not sure the guy with the no. 1 pick (even discounted for keepers) is trading it for him. I'm assuming you thought it was L'Veon Bell.

Yeah... L Bell.

 

[Ojaays]

Yes

I would use 1.12 on him

As it stands, I'm probably going to be able I get him with my 4th rounder, and I'm good with that.

 

[Bayhawks]

I'm just curious. Does everyone now have to provide links to support their thoughts on this, or am I the only one, because if that's the case there's a lot of missing links .

Many gave chimed in here on their thoughts on the outcome and why, without links.

These are all just our thoughts on what may happen and why, and btw, that's largely what message boards are.

Please don't ban me; I'm being as respectful when I post this.

When you state:

"Suh poked enough holes in the inconsistencies of the testing procedure" as if it were a fact, a link would be appreciated. Especially when there has been absolutely no report that he poked even 1 hole in the testing procedure, or even tried to do so.

When you couple that with the fact that you have posted several things in this thread (Marshawn Lynch was never suspended, "insiders" are saying there was a miscommunication on the NFL's part, "insiders" are saying Gordon didn't fail a test) without links, that have then proven to be wrong, you shouldn't complain when people ask for a link.

 

[LawFitz]

I'm just curious. Does everyone now have to provide links to support their thoughts on this, or am I the only one, because if that's the case there's a lot of missing links .

Many gave chimed in here on their thoughts on the outcome and why, without links.

These are all just our thoughts on what may happen and why, and btw, that's largely what message boards are.

Please don't ban me; I'm being as respectful when I post this.

When you state:

"Suh poked enough holes in the inconsistencies of the testing procedure" as if it were a fact, a link would be appreciated. Especially when there has been absolutely no report that he poked even 1 hole in the testing procedure, or even tried to do so.

When you couple that with the fact that you have posted several things in this thread (Marshawn Lynch was never suspended, "insiders" are saying there was a miscommunication on the NFL's part, "insiders" are saying Gordon didn't fail a test) without links, that have then proven to be wrong, you shouldn't complain when people ask for a link.

Dude, I'm not trying to defend the Soulfly/Ojaays contingent completely, but you're making this way too personal. He wrote...

"I believe Suh poked enough holes in the inconsistencies of the testing procedure,"

And you conveniently left out the first two words in your demands for a link. Not saying he/they haven't misrepresented opinion as fact before, but in this case, Ojaays did nothing wrong. He's entitled to "believe" whatever he wants.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

thanks. I think your logic is solid, unfortunately. I have a keeper deadline of today and I'm thinking I may have to part ways with him. I'll likely drop him for a J. Bell or Gerhart and I'll shoot myself if he gets his suspension overturned (he'll be the #1 pick in the draft). Keepers would be Ellington, AJ Green, Gronk, Cobb and either Gordon or Bell/Gore/Gerhart/C Johnson in the last spot. The decision is so feast or famine and if he wins his appeal my team would be ridiculous receiving wise (but maybe only a 20% chance of that occurring) or I can hedge it out and the team won't be as strong but it's safer.

ugh....

If you trade Bell for the #1 pick in the draft and keep Gordon...

--If Gordon isn't suspended you have Gordon plus the #1 pick

--If Gordon is suspended you have #1 pick

--If you don't make the trade you have Bell

So if the dropoff from Bell to the #1 pick (with Gordon suspended) isn't noticeable you're ahead because you've created the same outcome either way if Gordon is suspended (Bell or the #1 -- roughly the same).

AND you've found a way to come out ahead if Gordon's not suspended.

I think earlier he said it was Joqie Bell - not sure the guy with the no. 1 pick (even discounted for keepers) is trading it for him. I'm assuming you thought it was L'Veon Bell.

you're correct that it's Joquie and no there's no way I can even get a 1st rounder for him.

Joyque Bell is a decent backup/whatever you wish to call him for Bush, but I would much rather play it risky here.

 

[Bayhawks]

I'm just curious. Does everyone now have to provide links to support their thoughts on this, or am I the only one, because if that's the case there's a lot of missing links .

Many gave chimed in here on their thoughts on the outcome and why, without links.

These are all just our thoughts on what may happen and why, and btw, that's largely what message boards are.

Please don't ban me; I'm being as respectful when I post this.

When you state:

"Suh poked enough holes in the inconsistencies of the testing procedure" as if it were a fact, a link would be appreciated. Especially when there has been absolutely no report that he poked even 1 hole in the testing procedure, or even tried to do so.

When you couple that with the fact that you have posted several things in this thread (Marshawn Lynch was never suspended, "insiders" are saying there was a miscommunication on the NFL's part, "insiders" are saying Gordon didn't fail a test) without links, that have then proven to be wrong, you shouldn't complain when people ask for a link.

Dude, I'm not trying to defend the Soulfly/Ojaays contingent completely, but you're making this way too personal. He wrote...

"I believe Suh poked enough holes in the inconsistencies of the testing procedure,"

And you conveniently left out the first two words in your demands for a link. Not saying he/they haven't misrepresented opinion as fact before, but in this case, Ojaays did nothing wrong. He's entitled to "believe" whatever he wants.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm not making it personal at all.

If I posted "Josh Gordon will never play in the NFL again, because I believe he has failed another test since his appeal," I would (rightfully so) get numerous requests for a link. Posting something as fact, even when using the words "I believe," is intentionally mis-leading, especially when you consider that he's done this numerous times in this thread, and he and I have been told by FBG moderator to let that point go, unless we have links that support our arguments.

 

[FBG Moderator]

When discussion becomes pointless, repetitive arguing that drives people away from reading the thread, it needs to stop.

Arguing whether faults in the lab and test procedure were part of Gordon's appeal became that. Made worse by there not being any evidence it was argued in the appeal. So everyone was asked to move on or show a link that this specific argument was made.

The message to take away is that the line got crossed between discussing, and arguing in a way that drives others away from the thread. And not to do it again. The complaints about this thread are more than the rest of the Shark Pool combined. This shouldn't still be going on after the amount of mod posts to point out the line here.

This is too important of a topic to shut down. We've tried to make it clear what won't fly before reaching the point we just have to remove those who can't figure it out. But these same exact problems keep coming back.

Enough discussion of this please.

 

[ItsOnlytheRiver]

There's a video interview over at PFT with Mary Kay Cabot and she is claiming that it's her understanding that Harold Henderson can actually impose a penalty somewhere in the middle. It isn't just all or nothing as PFT has been reporting. There seems to be some gray area, but Mary Kay couldn't explain it in much detail. Who knows, but it's something. (Sorry if posted already, I skip most of the discussion in this thread for obvious reasons)

 

[Ojaays]

Could josh get a year, yes.

I just don't think he will.

What odds would you place on each outcome?

For me , my money's all in on him playing.

I will be drafting him in my league even prior to any decision.

He's too good of a talent not to roster if you have a chance.

Like I said , if he gets shutdown, it's no worse than an ACL, I'll take my chances that he plays.

By "my money's all in on him playing", are you saying that you think there is a 100% chance on Josh Gordon winning his appeal and beating his suspension? If not, what percent chance do you think Josh Gordon has of winning his appeal? Do you think he has a 99% chance of winning his appeal? 80%? 50.1%?

100% chance of winning.

 

[Clifford]

There's a video interview over at PFT with Mary Kay Cabot and she is claiming that it's her understanding that Harold Henderson can actually impose a penalty somewhere in the middle. It isn't just all or nothing as PFT has been reporting. There seems to be some gray area, but Mary Kay couldn't explain it in much detail. Who knows, but it's something. (Sorry if posted already, I skip most of the discussion in this thread for obvious reasons)

Mary Kay said the Cleveland Browns (the only team she covers) traded up to draft Manziel 1st overall. And this wasn't a tweet, this was a published article.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

When discussion becomes pointless, repetitive arguing that drives people away from reading the thread, it needs to stop.

Arguing whether faults in the lab and test procedure were part of Gordon's appeal became that. Made worse by there not being any evidence it was argued in the appeal. So everyone was asked to move on or show a link that this specific argument was made.

The message to take away is that the line got crossed between discussing, and arguing in a way that drives others away from the thread. And not to do it again. The complaints about this thread are more than the rest of the Shark Pool combined. This shouldn't still be going on after the amount of mod posts to point out the line here.

This is too important of a topic to shut down. We've tried to make it clear what won't fly before reaching the point we just have to remove those who can't figure it out. But these same exact problems keep coming back.

Enough discussion of this please.

So basically this is too important to not let people discuss this, but you don't want people even discussing differences of opinion on the central matter which will ultimately decide the case?

Honest question here: what is appropriate content for this thread, reporting news blurbs?

It has all been discussed for probably the last 40-50 pages....

I dont think I have ever seen a thread so repetitive....it's nauseating

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Could josh get a year, yes.

I just don't think he will.

What odds would you place on each outcome?

For me , my money's all in on him playing.

I will be drafting him in my league even prior to any decision.

He's too good of a talent not to roster if you have a chance.

Like I said , if he gets shutdown, it's no worse than an ACL, I'll take my chances that he plays.

By "my money's all in on him playing", are you saying that you think there is a 100% chance on Josh Gordon winning his appeal and beating his suspension? If not, what percent chance do you think Josh Gordon has of winning his appeal? Do you think he has a 99% chance of winning his appeal? 80%? 50.1%?

100% chance of winning.

With all due respect no one could possible believe that. There isn't any possibility that his appeal is denied in your mind?

 

[Azhais]

For Gordon and Rosenhaus, it sure would.

Even beyond the money, isn't the rule something like 2 indefinite bans = lifetime ban? Even if it ended up being 15 games and 59 minutes it'd skirt any of the massive penalties.

 

[ItsOnlytheRiver]

There's a video interview over at PFT with Mary Kay Cabot and she is claiming that it's her understanding that Harold Henderson can actually impose a penalty somewhere in the middle. It isn't just all or nothing as PFT has been reporting. There seems to be some gray area, but Mary Kay couldn't explain it in much detail. Who knows, but it's something. (Sorry if posted already, I skip most of the discussion in this thread for obvious reasons)

Mary Kay said the Cleveland Browns (the only team she covers) traded up to draft Manziel 1st overall. And this wasn't a tweet, this was a published article.

I'm aware her reputation is on thin ice, but it was new info to me no matter how truthful it really was.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

This thread is like tip toeing thru a minefield lol