What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

WR Josh Gordon, KC (1 Viewer)

GDogg

Footballguy
https://t.co/AMSDjvvmRE Seems like poor reporting going on as this indicates nobody getting suspended 8 games.
No, it doesn't. He clearly at about the :27 mark states that they fought very hard to have it retroactive so that positive tests "from the end of last season through..." Gordon's positive test supposedly was from prior to the end of last season (some time in December).

Per Feely's own words, the new standards wouldn't necessarily apply to Gordon.

 

Bamac

Footballguy
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.
 

SaintsInDome2006

Footballguy
What are you Gordon guys doing here with the latest news. I know it's all still speculation, but I don't love the idea of holding the empty roster spot on my team till week 10 when I'm (hopefully) making a playoff push.

You gonna stick it out, or if you can flip him for a RB2 (Ellington, Jennings, Vereen) or a WR2-3 (Edelman, Wright, Roddy) would you?
You remember Gollum with The Ring? Like that.

 

mnmplayer

Footballguy
https://t.co/AMSDjvvmRE Seems like poor reporting going on as this indicates nobody getting suspended 8 games.
No, it doesn't. He clearly at about the :27 mark states that they fought very hard to have it retroactive so that positive tests "from the end of last season through..." Gordon's positive test supposedly was from prior to the end of last season (some time in December).

Per Feely's own words, the new standards wouldn't necessarily apply to Gordon.
he goes on to say that its unfair if one person is suspended for 4 games and another is not depending on the timing of his test. He also presented this when they asked him about Josh Gordon. He went as far as presenting a theoretical case. I cant believe you saw the same video I did and came up with your conclusion, but each has a right to their own opinion.

 

Ditka Butkus

Footballguy
Salfino is tweeting about posting some video with Feely..

Michael Salfino @MichaelSalfino · 10m
Jay Feely, a rep and intimately involved in negotiations, very clearly INTIMATED that Gordon WILL NOT be suspended for any games.
"Very Clearly Intimated"

:lol:

That quote sums up this thread quite nicely.
Here's the media in question.
Hold up...What does Feely mean when he said...End of last season. Is he implying if you tested positive after last season ended?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Henry Ford

Footballguy
I don't want to suggest that the Saints would be trying to injure him if he plays this week...
No, no, what kind of despicable cad would suggest such a thing?
I'm just saying maybe he'd get one of those "remember me" shots.
You mean they're gonna actually tackle someone this week? HEYOOOOOO
I didn't say they'd tackle him. They'll hit him. That's been their problem so far this year.

 

Captain Quinoa

Footballguy
https://t.co/AMSDjvvmRE Seems like poor reporting going on as this indicates nobody getting suspended 8 games.
No, it doesn't. He clearly at about the :27 mark states that they fought very hard to have it retroactive so that positive tests "from the end of last season through..." Gordon's positive test supposedly was from prior to the end of last season (some time in December).

Per Feely's own words, the new standards wouldn't necessarily apply to Gordon.
he goes on to say that its unfair if one person is suspended for 4 games and another is not depending on the timing of his test. He also presented this when they asked him about Josh Gordon. He went as far as presenting a theoretical case. I cant believe you saw the same video I did and came up with your conclusion, but each has a right to their own opinion.
He also in his hypothetical says "... and his THC level was minute". Who else could that possibly refer to?

 

(HULK)

(Smash)
Ladies and Gentlemen, come on down to Cedar Point and ride our newest coaster: The Josh Gordon Experience

You'll be thrilled at how high this coaster gets you. The initial hill is set at 150.00000000000001 meters, just a hair above the maximum limit set by the National Funcoaster Laws. You'll be thrown down that hill at great velocity, twisting and turning and never knowing up from down, right from wrong. The Josh Gordon Experience utilizes new ground breaking technology that makes it switch variably between being suspended and not. Depending on the time of day and the mood of the riders, you'll either be suspended or not suspended, or both at the same time, depending on who you ask! Then, just as the ride looks like its about to end, SUPRISE, there is a 500 meter hill, thats right, the National Funcoaster Laws changed while we were building this coaster, so now we can take you over three times higher with no consequences!!! You'll barrel through to the end and your mind will be so scrambled, you'll be intoxicated. Come to Cedar Point and ride The Josh Gordon Experience... you'll be glad you did. Just listen to what some of our fans are saying about it:

"Man, when you compare this ride to the Ray Rice Bobsled, even I think its just too severe." - J. Palmer, Baltimore

"As long as I ride this in the offseason, its awesome!" - W. Welker, Denver

"This isn't my type of illegal hit, but this ride is still great!" - B. Meriweather, DC

 

B-Deep

Footballguy
https://t.co/AMSDjvvmRE Seems like poor reporting going on as this indicates nobody getting suspended 8 games.
No, it doesn't. He clearly at about the :27 mark states that they fought very hard to have it retroactive so that positive tests "from the end of last season through..." Gordon's positive test supposedly was from prior to the end of last season (some time in December).

Per Feely's own words, the new standards wouldn't necessarily apply to Gordon.
he goes on to say that its unfair if one person is suspended for 4 games and another is not depending on the timing of his test. He also presented this when they asked him about Josh Gordon. He went as far as presenting a theoretical case. I cant believe you saw the same video I did and came up with your conclusion, but each has a right to their own opinion.
well

all the people who served suspensions last year agree with him. Are they going to receive retro pay?

 

Peak

Footballguy
I'll be at work when the news comes in tonight.

Planning an Ickey Woods deli celebration.

WHOOOOOO. :Getsomecoldcuts: :Getsomecoldcuts: WHOOOOOO
Have to admit...I giggle outloud every time this commercial comes on....."check it out ya'll...gonna get me some cold cuts! whooo!!!!!"

 

GDogg

Footballguy
https://t.co/AMSDjvvmRE Seems like poor reporting going on as this indicates nobody getting suspended 8 games.
No, it doesn't. He clearly at about the :27 mark states that they fought very hard to have it retroactive so that positive tests "from the end of last season through..." Gordon's positive test supposedly was from prior to the end of last season (some time in December).

Per Feely's own words, the new standards wouldn't necessarily apply to Gordon.
he goes on to say that its unfair if one person is suspended for 4 games and another is not depending on the timing of his test. He also presented this when they asked him about Josh Gordon. He went as far as presenting a theoretical case. I cant believe you saw the same video I did and came up with your conclusion, but each has a right to their own opinion.
I can't believe I can type out the words he used for you and you still don't understand what he's saying. I didn't come up with any conclusion. Those are Feely's actual words. Riddle me this: Did Gordon's positive test happen in December (during the 2013 season) or was it sometime after the Super Bowl (after the season, so that "from the end of the season" applies)? Maybe you are simply unclear on what the words "from the end of the season" mean?

And, the example he used had nothing to do with Gordon when he discussed unfairness. He said it would be unfair if Skip gets tested today and would be negative under the current policy and not serve a suspension, but Stephen A. has the exact same results from a test performed two weeks ago (his words) and would serve a suspension.

Had the example he used said, "it would be unfair for Skip not to be suspended, but for Stephen A., who had his test performed in December of last year, be suspended all because of timing," then you'd have a point.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ditka Butkus

Footballguy
https://t.co/AMSDjvvmRE Seems like poor reporting going on as this indicates nobody getting suspended 8 games.
No, it doesn't. He clearly at about the :27 mark states that they fought very hard to have it retroactive so that positive tests "from the end of last season through..." Gordon's positive test supposedly was from prior to the end of last season (some time in December).

Per Feely's own words, the new standards wouldn't necessarily apply to Gordon.
he goes on to say that its unfair if one person is suspended for 4 games and another is not depending on the timing of his test. He also presented this when they asked him about Josh Gordon. He went as far as presenting a theoretical case. I cant believe you saw the same video I did and came up with your conclusion, but each has a right to their own opinion.
I can't believe I can type out the words he used for you and you still don't understand what he's saying. I didn't come up with any conclusion. Those are Feely's actual words. Riddle me this: Did Gordon's positive test happen in December (during the 2013 season) or was it sometime after the Super Bowl (after the season, so that "from the end of the season" applies)? Maybe you are simply unclear on what the words "from the end of the season" mean?

And, the example he used had nothing to do with Gordon when he discussed unfairness. He said it would be unfair if Skip gets tested today and would be negative under the current policy and not serve a suspension, but Stephen A. has the exact same results from a test performed two weeks ago (his words) and would serve a suspension.

Had the example he used said, "it would be unfair for Skip not to be suspended, but for Stephen A., who had his test performed in December of last year, be suspended all because of timing," then you'd have a point.
I'm on board with you as well...maybe he chose his words poorly, or maybe we are reading to much into his words, or maybe he meant exactly what he said. IMO it still leaves some doubt.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

mnmplayer

Footballguy
https://t.co/AMSDjvvmRE Seems like poor reporting going on as this indicates nobody getting suspended 8 games.
No, it doesn't. He clearly at about the :27 mark states that they fought very hard to have it retroactive so that positive tests "from the end of last season through..." Gordon's positive test supposedly was from prior to the end of last season (some time in December).

Per Feely's own words, the new standards wouldn't necessarily apply to Gordon.
he goes on to say that its unfair if one person is suspended for 4 games and another is not depending on the timing of his test. He also presented this when they asked him about Josh Gordon. He went as far as presenting a theoretical case. I cant believe you saw the same video I did and came up with your conclusion, but each has a right to their own opinion.
I can't believe I can type out the words he used for you and you still don't understand what he's saying. I didn't come up with any conclusion. Those are Feely's actual words. Riddle me this: Did Gordon's positive test happen in December (during the 2013 season) or was it sometime after the Super Bowl (after the season, so that "from the end of the season" applies)? Maybe you are simply unclear on what the words "from the end of the season" mean?

And, the example he used had nothing to do with Gordon when he discussed unfairness. He said it would be unfair if Skip gets tested today and would be negative under the current policy and not serve a suspension, but Stephen A. has the exact same results from a test performed two weeks ago (his words) and would serve a suspension.

Had the example he used said, "it would be unfair for Skip not to be suspended, but for Stephen A., who had his test performed in December of last year, be suspended all because of timing," then you'd have a point.
Dude, I just like to bring pertinent info to the board so players can make informed decisions. I'm not in the business of chest puffing on a forum board or getting into it with some guy names Dogg. so I'll bow out and wait for the decision. I think he's playing if it passes. You don't. Good luck.

 

Captain Quinoa

Footballguy
https://t.co/AMSDjvvmRE Seems like poor reporting going on as this indicates nobody getting suspended 8 games.
No, it doesn't. He clearly at about the :27 mark states that they fought very hard to have it retroactive so that positive tests "from the end of last season through..." Gordon's positive test supposedly was from prior to the end of last season (some time in December).

Per Feely's own words, the new standards wouldn't necessarily apply to Gordon.
he goes on to say that its unfair if one person is suspended for 4 games and another is not depending on the timing of his test. He also presented this when they asked him about Josh Gordon. He went as far as presenting a theoretical case. I cant believe you saw the same video I did and came up with your conclusion, but each has a right to their own opinion.
I can't believe I can type out the words he used for you and you still don't understand what he's saying. I didn't come up with any conclusion. Those are Feely's actual words. Riddle me this: Did Gordon's positive test happen in December (during the 2013 season) or was it sometime after the Super Bowl (after the season, so that "from the end of the season" applies)? Maybe you are simply unclear on what the words "from the end of the season" mean?

And, the example he used had nothing to do with Gordon when he discussed unfairness. He said it would be unfair if Skip gets tested today and would be negative under the current policy and not serve a suspension, but Stephen A. has the exact same results from a test performed two weeks ago (his words) and would serve a suspension.

Had the example he used said, "it would be unfair for Skip not to be suspended, but for Stephen A., who had his test performed in December of last year, be suspended all because of timing," then you'd have a point.
"From the end of last season" = it happened at the end of last season

"Since the end of last season" = after the end of last season

 

(HULK)

(Smash)
Darn it! I hit 10,001 and then I deleted 9999, but I also deleted 10,001 by accident. Was going to have it locked in at 10,000

 

bolzano

Footballguy
https://t.co/AMSDjvvmRE Seems like poor reporting going on as this indicates nobody getting suspended 8 games.
No, it doesn't. He clearly at about the :27 mark states that they fought very hard to have it retroactive so that positive tests "from the end of last season through..." Gordon's positive test supposedly was from prior to the end of last season (some time in December).

Per Feely's own words, the new standards wouldn't necessarily apply to Gordon.
he goes on to say that its unfair if one person is suspended for 4 games and another is not depending on the timing of his test. He also presented this when they asked him about Josh Gordon. He went as far as presenting a theoretical case. I cant believe you saw the same video I did and came up with your conclusion, but each has a right to their own opinion.
Agreed. Feely correctly noted that the timing of failed test is a morally arbitrary factor and hence it would be unjust to use it as a determining factor when applying the new policy. e.g., It would be unfair to apply the new standards to a player who was tested in 3/2014 and not do the same for a player who failed a test in 12/2013. Indeed, something would be amiss in Feely's reasoning if he wasn't advocating for Gordon to be grandfathered in to the new policy as well.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

GoodLloydHaveMercy

Footballguy
Me thinks Geico doesn't like their Ickey Woods commercial being credited as an ESPN commercial... Love it though... Get some cold cuts!!

Also well done Hulk... Specially enjoy the quotes

 

Ditka Butkus

Footballguy
This decision is going to be like Christmas to those who hold Gordon........You are either going to get your best present ever!, or something mediocre or a big lump of coal. The anticipation is awesome!

 

GDogg

Footballguy
https://t.co/AMSDjvvmRE Seems like poor reporting going on as this indicates nobody getting suspended 8 games.
No, it doesn't. He clearly at about the :27 mark states that they fought very hard to have it retroactive so that positive tests "from the end of last season through..." Gordon's positive test supposedly was from prior to the end of last season (some time in December).

Per Feely's own words, the new standards wouldn't necessarily apply to Gordon.
he goes on to say that its unfair if one person is suspended for 4 games and another is not depending on the timing of his test. He also presented this when they asked him about Josh Gordon. He went as far as presenting a theoretical case. I cant believe you saw the same video I did and came up with your conclusion, but each has a right to their own opinion.
I can't believe I can type out the words he used for you and you still don't understand what he's saying. I didn't come up with any conclusion. Those are Feely's actual words. Riddle me this: Did Gordon's positive test happen in December (during the 2013 season) or was it sometime after the Super Bowl (after the season, so that "from the end of the season" applies)? Maybe you are simply unclear on what the words "from the end of the season" mean?

And, the example he used had nothing to do with Gordon when he discussed unfairness. He said it would be unfair if Skip gets tested today and would be negative under the current policy and not serve a suspension, but Stephen A. has the exact same results from a test performed two weeks ago (his words) and would serve a suspension.

Had the example he used said, "it would be unfair for Skip not to be suspended, but for Stephen A., who had his test performed in December of last year, be suspended all because of timing," then you'd have a point.
Dude, I just like to bring pertinent info to the board so players can make informed decisions. I'm not in the business of chest puffing on a forum board or getting into it with some guy names Dogg. so I'll bow out and wait for the decision. I think he's playing if it passes. You don't. Good luck.
I'm not trying to be a #### here, but either I am having a tough time being clear in my writing or you are struggling with reading comp/active listening. I have yet to give my opinion on the subject and I probably won't and I haven't drawn any conclusions. I don't think one way or the other on this because I don't have enough reliable information. Any thoughts would simply be a guess and I don't like to work with guesses.

I hope he's cleared immediately as I picked him up last week in one of my leagues.

But, the video from Feely does not make anything clear one way or the other on Gordon. He says they fought hard to have reinstatement for tests "from the end of last season through" the present. From what I've gathered (and I did a quick Google search and didn't find a date), Gordon's failed test was in December, during the regular season. Based on that and Feely saying they fought for reinstatement for tests "from the end of last season," it's not clear that Gordon is going to be included in the "retroactive" group.

Maybe he will be. I hope he will be. But, Feely's video is not evidence or authority that Gordon will be (assuming his failed test was during the 2013 season).

 

B-Deep

Footballguy
is this, potentially, one of the biggest fantasy football swings in recent memory?

i mean this assumes that he plays at a level similar to last season....having this guy come on waivers, or be snagged free in some cases, and then play most of the season that is a huge swing, the biggest non injury swing i can recall

the biggest positive swing

 

bjabrad

Footballguy
I don't get the NFL's position. They need to get all of this out of the news cycle ASAP. The worst part is a story that has a harsher penalty for THC traces than beating a woman unconscious and an 8 game suspension would keep that story alive for another two months.

Here's what I want to know. Would this wipe the slate clean for everybody and let them start fresh under a new CBA and drug policy? Wouldn't that be the clean way to do it?

 

Van Dyman

Footballguy
is this, potentially, one of the biggest fantasy football swings in recent memory?

i mean this assumes that he plays at a level similar to last season....having this guy come on waivers, or be snagged free in some cases, and then play most of the season that is a huge swing, the biggest non injury swing i can recall

the biggest positive swing
I was just thinking that. It could be the type of swing that really changes how long people hold out hope when their studs get suspended during the season.

 

dagwood

Footballguy
https://t.co/AMSDjvvmRE Seems like poor reporting going on as this indicates nobody getting suspended 8 games.
No, it doesn't. He clearly at about the :27 mark states that they fought very hard to have it retroactive so that positive tests "from the end of last season through..." Gordon's positive test supposedly was from prior to the end of last season (some time in December).

Per Feely's own words, the new standards wouldn't necessarily apply to Gordon.
he goes on to say that its unfair if one person is suspended for 4 games and another is not depending on the timing of his test. He also presented this when they asked him about Josh Gordon. He went as far as presenting a theoretical case. I cant believe you saw the same video I did and came up with your conclusion, but each has a right to their own opinion.
I can't believe I can type out the words he used for you and you still don't understand what he's saying. I didn't come up with any conclusion. Those are Feely's actual words. Riddle me this: Did Gordon's positive test happen in December (during the 2013 season) or was it sometime after the Super Bowl (after the season, so that "from the end of the season" applies)? Maybe you are simply unclear on what the words "from the end of the season" mean?

And, the example he used had nothing to do with Gordon when he discussed unfairness. He said it would be unfair if Skip gets tested today and would be negative under the current policy and not serve a suspension, but Stephen A. has the exact same results from a test performed two weeks ago (his words) and would serve a suspension.

Had the example he used said, "it would be unfair for Skip not to be suspended, but for Stephen A., who had his test performed in December of last year, be suspended all because of timing," then you'd have a point.
Dude, I just like to bring pertinent info to the board so players can make informed decisions. I'm not in the business of chest puffing on a forum board or getting into it with some guy names Dogg. so I'll bow out and wait for the decision. I think he's playing if it passes. You don't. Good luck.
I'm not trying to be a #### here, but either I am having a tough time being clear in my writing or you are struggling with reading comp/active listening. I have yet to give my opinion on the subject and I probably won't and I haven't drawn any conclusions. I don't think one way or the other on this because I don't have enough reliable information. Any thoughts would simply be a guess and I don't like to work with guesses.

I hope he's cleared immediately as I picked him up last week in one of my leagues.

But, the video from Feely does not make anything clear one way or the other on Gordon. He says they fought hard to have reinstatement for tests "from the end of last season through" the present. From what I've gathered (and I did a quick Google search and didn't find a date), Gordon's failed test was in December, during the regular season. Based on that and Feely saying they fought for reinstatement for tests "from the end of last season," it's not clear that Gordon is going to be included in the "retroactive" group.

Maybe he will be. I hope he will be. But, Feely's video is not evidence or authority that Gordon will be (assuming his failed test was during the 2013 season).
The problem is you all are too smart for your own good. When normal people talk about people suspended this year they don't group them into two groups. Those suspended this year for failing a test this year and those suspended this year for failing a test last year. That's the attorneys jobs and they will get the wording right. But people in the room know what they mean when they say they want everyone treated fairly and to retroactively fix this. And they have attorneys to make sure the agreement is worded as such.

Chance of no suspension starting to rise.

 

NJ

Footballguy
I WISH SOMEONE WOULD REPORT A TIME OF THE VOTE
On NFL Insiders Dan Graziano said that he just heard 1/2 hour ago that the vote was scheduled for "early this evening", no specific time though.

ETA he did go on to say there is a chance that could get pushed back or "blown up completely" so I don't know wtf that means, is it scheduled or not?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Omniscient Deity

Footballguy
Anyone worried about his production if the 8 games turns out to be true? Will you start him with confidence his first game back?

Or would you trade him the week before he returns if someone pays a WR1 price for him?

 

dagwood

Footballguy
I don't get the NFL's position. They need to get all of this out of the news cycle ASAP. The worst part is a story that has a harsher penalty for THC traces than beating a woman unconscious and an 8 game suspension would keep that story alive for another two months.

Here's what I want to know. Would this wipe the slate clean for everybody and let them start fresh under a new CBA and drug policy? Wouldn't that be the clean way to do it?
Yep. And there is a good chance that will happen.

 

DaveGrumbles

Footballguy
I can't believe I can type out the words he used for you and you still don't understand what he's saying. I didn't come up with any conclusion. Those are Feely's actual words. Riddle me this: Did Gordon's positive test happen in December (during the 2013 season) or was it sometime after the Super Bowl (after the season, so that "from the end of the season" applies)? Maybe you are simply unclear on what the words "from the end of the season" mean?

And, the example he used had nothing to do with Gordon when he discussed unfairness. He said it would be unfair if Skip gets tested today and would be negative under the current policy and not serve a suspension, but Stephen A. has the exact same results from a test performed two weeks ago (his words) and would serve a suspension.

Had the example he used said, "it would be unfair for Skip not to be suspended, but for Stephen A., who had his test performed in December of last year, be suspended all because of timing," then you'd have a point.
"From the end of last season" = it happened at the end of last season

"Since the end of last season" = after the end of last season
You're getting hung up on the very ambigous wording he used. Him saying 'from' could be construed a lot of different ways. What I think was clear is that he was referring to Josh Gordon with the entire retroactive discussion but rightly trying to stay away from naming names.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top