WR Josh Gordon, KC (2 Viewers)

[Bayhawks]

I need to back up, as I missed this conversation the first 500 times. Disregarding the new policy for the moment, where were the advancements? He's only tested positive in the NFL twice, right? How do you get to a Stage III violation with only two positives? I think we can assume he entered in Stage I under the behavioral clause, based on his college positives and perhaps the falling asleep in the Taco Bell drive-thru episode. The first NFL positive (codeine) advanced him to Stage II. As I read the old policy, it takes TWO positives while in Stage II to be moved into Stage III. So why wouldn't he still be in Stage II after the second positive (weed) with one more positive between him and Stage III? And after that advancement he would still require yet another positive for a violation of Stage III. Even throwing in a doctor advancing him somewhere along the way, which is a second assumption, he's still not at a violation of Stage III. I don't see how there isn't at least one more positive that we don't know about, if not more.

The NFL doesn't announce what stage people are in so it's left to us to guess based on reports and the punishments handed out.

Like I mentioned earlier, a player can enter Stage 1 for behavior and be advanced to Stage 2 based on the diagnosis of dependency. In fact if he's not advanced within 90 days he's supposed to be dropped out of Stage 1 in most (but not all) cases. You're right about it taking 2 tests to go from Stage 2 to Stage 3, I missed that earlier. So I would imagine the codeine was the first failed test at Stage 2, and then the marijuana failure immediately moved him to Stage 3 where he got the full year.

How he got to Stage 2 we can only guess at. With 3 failed tests in college it wouldn't be hard for me to imagine his diagnosis got him into Stage 2. But the falling asleep in the drive through thing could have been part of it too.

As I interpret it, a second Stage II violation is still just 6 games and an advancement to Stage III. You don't get the year until a violation after being moved into Stage III.

(2) Discipline for Second Failure to Comply in Stage Two:A player who has two Positive Tests in Stage Two; or fails twice, as determined by the Medical Director, to comply with his Treatment Plan in Stage Two; or has a Positive Test and fails to comply with his Treatment Plan, as determined by the Medical Director; or fails to cooperate with testing, treatment, evaluation or other requirements imposed on him by this Policy, as determined by the Medical Director, will incur:

(a) A suspension for the period of time to cover four consecutive regular and post season games (including the Pro Bowl, if selected) without pay if the player was fined pursuant to Section E.2.b.(1)(a) above; and

(b) A suspension for the period of time to cover six consecutive regular and post season games (including the Pro Bowl, if selected) without pay if the player was suspended pursuant to Section E.2.b.(1)(b) above.

If he has only tested positive twice, it sounds like this "Medical Director" has taken him to the woodshed a few times.

I need to back up, as I missed this conversation the first 500 times. Disregarding the new policy for the moment, where were the advancements? He's only tested positive in the NFL twice, right? How do you get to a Stage III violation with only two positives? I think we can assume he entered in Stage I under the behavioral clause, based on his college positives and perhaps the falling asleep in the Taco Bell drive-thru episode. The first NFL positive (codeine) advanced him to Stage II. As I read the old policy, it takes TWO positives while in Stage II to be moved into Stage III. So why wouldn't he still be in Stage II after the second positive (weed) with one more positive between him and Stage III? And after that advancement he would still require yet another positive for a violation of Stage III. Even throwing in a doctor advancing him somewhere along the way, which is a second assumption, he's still not at a violation of Stage III. I don't see how there isn't at least one more positive that we don't know about, if not more.

The NFL doesn't announce what stage people are in so it's left to us to guess based on reports and the punishments handed out.

Like I mentioned earlier, a player can enter Stage 1 for behavior and be advanced to Stage 2 based on the diagnosis of dependency. In fact if he's not advanced within 90 days he's supposed to be dropped out of Stage 1 in most (but not all) cases. You're right about it taking 2 tests to go from Stage 2 to Stage 3, I missed that earlier. So I would imagine the codeine was the first failed test at Stage 2, and then the marijuana failure immediately moved him to Stage 3 where he got the full year.

How he got to Stage 2 we can only guess at. With 3 failed tests in college it wouldn't be hard for me to imagine his diagnosis got him into Stage 2. But the falling asleep in the drive through thing could have been part of it too.

As I interpret it, a second Stage II violation is still just 6 games and an advancement to Stage III. You don't get the year until a violation after being moved into Stage III.

(2) Discipline for Second Failure to Comply in Stage Two:A player who has two Positive Tests in Stage Two; or fails twice, as determined by the Medical Director, to comply with his Treatment Plan in Stage Two; or has a Positive Test and fails to comply with his Treatment Plan, as determined by the Medical Director; or fails to cooperate with testing, treatment, evaluation or other requirements imposed on him by this Policy, as determined by the Medical Director, will incur:

(a) A suspension for the period of time to cover four consecutive regular and post season games (including the Pro Bowl, if selected) without pay if the player was fined pursuant to Section E.2.b.(1)(a) above; and

(b) A suspension for the period of time to cover six consecutive regular and post season games (including the Pro Bowl, if selected) without pay if the player was suspended pursuant to Section E.2.b.(1)(b) above.

If he has only tested positive twice, it sounds like this "Medical Director" has taken him to the woodshed a few times.

You're not reading it correctly. There are two possible punishments for a two positives and/or failing to cooperate with testing/treatment etc in stage 2. One is the 4 game penalty, the other is the 6 game penalty. It depends on how he was fined. If he was fined (pursuant to section E.2.b.(1)(a), his suspension is 4 games. If he was suspended (pursuant to section E.2.b.(1)(b), his suspension for the 2nd failure is 6 games. (see red text above)

Since Gordon was suspended for 4 games (reduced to 2), I'd assume he was fined for the 1st failure, not suspended.

 

[GregR]

We don't really know the details so it's going to be hard to nail down. It doesn't take only a failed test or an attempt to cheat on a test... just not complying with the terms of his treatment plan is a strike same as a failed test is.

It looks like he could have entered Stage One for behavior, and advanced to Stage Two based on diagnosis... but having complied with Stage One treatment. A Stage 2 first offense does not draw a suspension if he completed his treatment plan in Stage One.

So one possibility is he already had his first Stage Two offense that resulted in a fine but no suspension which we know nothing about. It could have been not going to treatment, or maybe it was the drive through. Or a failed test that was never made public.

Then the codeine could have been his 2nd offense in Stage 2. Since he wouldn't have been suspended for the first Stage Two violation, the second violation suspension is 4 games, and according to Gordon the 2 games he actually got was adjusted down because of his situation saying he had a prescription for it.

So that would be a scenario where the codeine pushed him into Stage 3, where he had the positive marijuana test.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

We don't really know the details so it's going to be hard to nail down. It doesn't take only a failed test or an attempt to cheat on a test... just not complying with the terms of his treatment plan is a strike same as a failed test is.

It looks like he could have entered Stage One for behavior, and advanced to Stage Two based on diagnosis... but having complied with Stage One treatment. A Stage 2 first offense does not draw a suspension if he completed his treatment plan in Stage One.

So one possibility is he already had his first Stage Two offense that resulted in a fine but no suspension which we know nothing about. It could have been not going to treatment, or maybe it was the drive through. Or a failed test that was never made public.

Then the codeine could have been his 2nd offense in Stage 2. Since he wouldn't have been suspended for the first Stage Two violation, the second violation suspension is 4 games, and according to Gordon the 2 games he actually got was adjusted down because of his situation saying he had a prescription for it.

So that would be a scenario where the codeine pushed him into Stage 3, where he had the positive marijuana test.

Right, the CPD reported in July of 2013 that the codeine result vaulted him into Stage 3.

 

[mrbigg]

If it makes you guys feel better, Mary Kay is full of ####. She was dead wrong on the Lebron Free agency so many times and I won't think it's above her to make up #### again.

 

[damageinc]

Not sure if this can be answered yet but since this is a new policy can Gordon appeal the 10 games ? the last appeal was for the full year un der the old policy. I wonder if he has the option of an appeal on the new 10 game ban and can he get it reduced at all if he were to win.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

USA Today got their hands on the terms sheet the players voted on. So this isn't an actual agreement between the players and league... this is what the players told their union leadership they had the greenlight to work out final wording for. If the league doesn't agree to something, doesn't mean it'll make it in.

So they're not necessarily all that close to reaching a deal after all. What the players voted on yesterday was not a proposal from the league. It was a list of terms that they will propose to the league. In other words, they weren't voting to approve a new drug policy; they were voting on what kind of counter-offer they should make. That's way different from what was initially reported.

 

[Apple Jack]

We don't really know the details so it's going to be hard to nail down. It doesn't take only a failed test or an attempt to cheat on a test... just not complying with the terms of his treatment plan is a strike same as a failed test is.

It looks like he could have entered Stage One for behavior, and advanced to Stage Two based on diagnosis... but having complied with Stage One treatment. A Stage 2 first offense does not draw a suspension if he completed his treatment plan in Stage One.

So one possibility is he already had his first Stage Two offense that resulted in a fine but no suspension which we know nothing about. It could have been not going to treatment, or maybe it was the drive through. Or a failed test that was never made public.

Then the codeine could have been his 2nd offense in Stage 2. Since he wouldn't have been suspended for the first Stage Two violation, the second violation suspension is 4 games, and according to Gordon the 2 games he actually got was adjusted down because of his situation saying he had a prescription for it.

So that would be a scenario where the codeine pushed him into Stage 3, where he had the positive marijuana test.

Based on what we "know", this seems the most likely scenario. Whatever the case, there were at least three advancements that the public was not privy to.

Now trying to apply that to the policy that was leaked is making me nauseous.

ETA: As does reading anything that Mary Kay woman writes.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Not sure if this can be answered yet but since this is a new policy can Gordon appeal the 10 games ? the last appeal was for the full year un der the old policy. I wonder if he has the option of an appeal on the new 10 game ban and can he get it reduced at all if he were to win.

A player can't appeal the number of games. What he can appeal is whether he failed the test. He's already done that and lost.

 

[damageinc]

Not sure if this can be answered yet but since this is a new policy can Gordon appeal the 10 games ? the last appeal was for the full year un der the old policy. I wonder if he has the option of an appeal on the new 10 game ban and can he get it reduced at all if he were to win.

A player can't appeal the number of games. What he can appeal is whether he failed the test. He's already done that and lost.

Ahh ok, I appreciate the reply and thank you.

 

[treat88]

USA Today got their hands on the terms sheet the players voted on. So this isn't an actual agreement between the players and league... this is what the players told their union leadership they had the greenlight to work out final wording for. If the league doesn't agree to something, doesn't mean it'll make it in.

So they're not necessarily all that close to reaching a deal after all. What the players voted on yesterday was not a proposal from the league. It was a list of terms that they will propose to the league. In other words, they weren't voting to approve a new drug policy; they were voting on what kind of counter-offer they should make. That's way different from what was initially reported.

Yes it is thankfully.

Not in respect to Gordon specifically, but based on the generalities reported, the players were about to get reamed just as badly as they did in the last CBA....unless the terms reported were their counter proposal in which case the NFLPA leadership is even more of an embarrassment than they already have proven.

 

[FlapJacks]

Not sure if this can be answered yet but since this is a new policy can Gordon appeal the 10 games ? the last appeal was for the full year un der the old policy. I wonder if he has the option of an appeal on the new 10 game ban and can he get it reduced at all if he were to win.

A player can't appeal the number of games. What he can appeal is whether he failed the test. He's already done that and lost.

Under the old agreement, appeals go to he labor relations of the NFL. I wonder if the new agreement will give him another avenue or venue or line of argument on which to appeal. 16 nanos has to be within the margin of error of the limit and his B sample was under the limit. It certainly lends credence to the idea that the A sample was on the high side.

His whole suspension rests on a test that was kind of dubious in the first place.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Under the old agreement, appeals go to he labor relations of the NFL. I wonder if the new agreement will give him another avenue or venue or line of argument on which to appeal. 16 nanos has to be within the margin of error of the limit and his B sample was under the limit. It certainly lends credence to the idea that the A sample was on the high side.

His whole suspension rests on a test that was kind of iffy in the first place.

It may have been iffy, but it's already been litigated (through arbitration) and decided. It's not going to be litigated again.

 

[I Am the Stig]

<b>Pure speculation.... Another possible explanation for reports of a stage 4 thing is that multiple failed college tests are handled differently in the new policy.</b>

In the old policy, Gordon's 3 failed college tests landed him in Stage 1. The codeine was then Stage 2 and the marijuana Stage 3.

It could be in the new policy that, say, 1 failed college test gets you Stage 1, while 2 or more failed college tests gets you Stage 2. In which case the codeine would be Stage 3 and the marijuana Stage 4.

That would be consistent with the other explanation that they are not changing test results from before the league year, but are just applying whatever tests were failed to the new policy to see what level the person is at now.

The problem is, his last violation isn't a violation. It is hard to apply new punishment retroactively without consideration of if the new punishment should even be applied because one of the offenses isn't an offense.Everyone including the reporters are taking their eye off the prize. Once you apply new punishment standards to past crimes you are acting retroactively.

The next step in Gordon's court is to apply the ability to reconsider whether his last offense should be reviewed.

Likely, there will be wording to allow him to appeal his last violation and plead it down.

It is not over. I say he ends up with 6-8 when all is said and done.

Why?

Why not? I explained why. Simply snarking "why" makes you as clever as any 5 year old.

No, you didn't give a reason as to why this one player would be allowed to plead it down. Other than the fact that you own him and hope this is what happens.

Why not? Or are you just trolling? What makes you think other players couldn't plead down? This is a Josh Gordon thread not a "NFL Drug Policy" Thread. So of course I'm talking about the policy as it may apply to Josh Gordon.

 

[whiskey7]

I'm not suggesting it would have, but what I am saying is that the people who took a chance on Gordon will have an elite talent who would have been taken in the first round for a throw away choice that would have been used on a marginal player...The owners who drafted Gordon did a great job + will have a huge advantage come playoff time.

You really can't be serious if you expect Gordon to be productive in week 11 or 12. He will not hit the ground running and is likely to be borderline starter production for a few weeks. More likely a wasted season with a big play or two, but no monster games

You mean how he came in last year after being suspended and his first game of the year he put up 10/146/1? We differ in our definition of "borderline".

Big difference between coming into a game in Week 3 only two weeks removed from camp and coming in Week 12 after being away from the team and speed of the game for months. I am not saying he can't/won't blow up upon returning, but I tend to agree with Wilbur that its wishful thinking to believe he jumps right in where he left off at the end of last season. Might be a moot point, anyways, if he's dumb enough to get popped again.

 

[dschuler]

If he is suspended 10 games, I don't even know if I would risk starting him. He wouldn't be on the field until week 12, and I imagine there would be a lot of rust to knock off. Playoffs start week 14, so it would be a huge gamble.

 

[SCT]

If he is suspended 10 games and has no contact with the program, I think he will find trouble again before week 12.

 

[The General]

Didn't see this mentioned but are games missed this season going to count in the suspension. Say this drags out another 2 weeks will he already have 4 games counting towards say a 10 game suspension?

 

[LittlePhatty]

Didn't see this mentioned but are games missed this season going to count in the suspension?

Yes

 

[The General]

Didn't see this mentioned but are games missed this season going to count in the suspension?

Yes

Cool, thanks.Now let's get this thing reduced to 6 games and we're all good.

 

[Shawn]

Didn't see this mentioned but are games missed this season going to count in the suspension. Say this drags out another 2 weeks will he already have 4 games counting towards say a 10 game suspension?

I would hope they count.

 

[Routilla]

#FreeJoshGordon

 

[identikit]

So Soulfly was, ultimately, correct.

 

[Bayhawks]

So Soulfly was, ultimately, correct.

Well to borrow/paraphrase one of Soulfly's expressions from earlier in this thread:

"as of this moment, Josh Gordon is playing zero games in 2014;" so he is not correct, yet.

Also, once again, we see lazy journalism at work. No new policy is in place, nor has one been agreed to. The team reps essentially told the NFLPA "we'll agree to these terms, if the NFL wants to." The NFL hasn't responded, and from what I can tell (and who knows if that's correct, since there are so many conflicting reports, one after the other), they haven't even actually begun to deal with the possibility of how to deal with currently suspended players.

 

[jdswan922]

Correct me if I am wrong, but if the USA Today terms end up being agreed to by the NFL, it would seem that Gordon would be in line for a fine and no games suspended or at worst, a 4 game suspension. Assuming they use the old threshold for the test and the new policy to determine the punishment.

 

[Bobcat10]

If it makes you guys feel better, Mary Kay is full of ####. She was dead wrong on the Lebron Free agency so many times and I won't think it's above her to make up #### again.

Mary Kay Cabot =/ Mary Schmitt Boyer

I can't stand either one...thank goodness MSB just left the PD and the Cavs have new beat writers. Time for MKC to get the boot too.

 

[TartanLion]

10 is probably just too heavy for my tastes. If your roster is struggling a bit elsewhere like mine is at RB it's a long way to keep dead weight on your roster for in the hopes he instantly returns to his stride for the last 5-6 games.

8 and I'm in without hesitation in both my leagues

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Correct me if I am wrong, but if the USA Today terms end up being agreed to by the NFL, it would seem that Gordon would be in line for a fine and no games suspended or at worst, a 4 game suspension. Assuming they use the old threshold for the test and the new policy to determine the punishment.

This sounds awesome. Wish it were true.

 

[nelly29]

10 games is not great.... 8 games is the sweet spot for my team keeping him.... If he gets 10 I will look to deal him for a wr2

 

[LawFitz]

So Soulfly was, ultimately, correct.

Well to borrow/paraphrase one of Soulfly's expressions from earlier in this thread:"as of this moment, Josh Gordon is playing zero games in 2014;" so he is not correct, yet.

Also, once again, we see lazy journalism at work. No new policy is in place, nor has one been agreed to. The team reps essentially told the NFLPA "we'll agree to these terms, if the NFL wants to." The NFL hasn't responded, and from what I can tell (and who knows if that's correct, since there are so many conflicting reports, one after the other), they haven't even actually begun to deal with the possibility of how to deal with currently suspended players.

Souljaays was right and you and the other killer B's (Bazinga, Butkiss) were wrong. Just admit it and move on. Backpedals, spin and sematics won't change 200 pages of you three calling everyone dumb for rostering Gordon.

 

[Bayhawks]

So Soulfly was, ultimately, correct.

Well to borrow/paraphrase one of Soulfly's expressions from earlier in this thread:"as of this moment, Josh Gordon is playing zero games in 2014;" so he is not correct, yet.

Also, once again, we see lazy journalism at work. No new policy is in place, nor has one been agreed to. The team reps essentially told the NFLPA "we'll agree to these terms, if the NFL wants to." The NFL hasn't responded, and from what I can tell (and who knows if that's correct, since there are so many conflicting reports, one after the other), they haven't even actually begun to deal with the possibility of how to deal with currently suspended players.

Souljaays was right and you and the other killer B's (Bazinga, Butkiss) were wrong. Just admit it and move on. Backpedals, spin and sematics won't change 200 pages of you three calling everyone dumb for rostering Gordon.

Find 1 post where I said someone shouldn't roster Gordon. I dare you to try.Know what you are talking about before you spout off, maybe.

And for the record, although it doesn't matter, Soulfly was no more right than anyone who said Gordon would get a full 16 games. He never predicted a 10 game suspension (even though that isn't even official, at this point).

 

[The General]

Say he's out for 10. What kind of offer would people think is reasonable right now?

 

[bolzano]

The term sheet specifically states agreement in place to retroactively reduce marijuana discipline based on new SCHEDULE, not new THRESHOLD

https://twitter.com/TomPelissero/status/510783692210720768

If true, it can't be reconciled with what Feely said yesterday, as he clearly stated that the union fought hard to have the threshold applied retroactively. It's been reported that the snag in the new deal is related to player suspensions, so I guess there's still hope that the union is fighting hard for Gordon and players in similar circumstances.

 

[Sir Psycho]

Say he's out for 10. What kind of offer would people think is reasonable right now?

I've got harvin for Gordon.

 

[rocketsauce]

Say he's out for 10. What kind of offer would people think is reasonable right now?

I traded Gordon & Terrance West for Rashad Jennings & Justin Hunter in my 12 team PPR. Just wasn't interested in holding till Week 12. My roster space is too valuable.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

This thread is way, way, way better than the Peterson thread.

 

[mrbigg]

This thread is about hope

 

[mnmplayer]

Mary Kay seems confused

Mary Kay Cabot @MaryKayCabot · 6h

If they apply the new 35 ng standards, why would Gordon be suspended at all? Or did he commit #4 in the new league year? (he's in Stage 3)



Mary Kay Cabot @MaryKayCabot · 6h
Still trying to sort out why it'll be 10 games for Gordon. 4th violation under new rules is 10 games. But his 16 ng was 3rd violation....

 

[mnmplayer]

Well its at least a 2 game suspension for Welk and Gordon for sure:

Ian Rapoport ‏@RapSheet 34m

The roster deadline to play Sunday has passed. As my internet-less (d’oh!) flight takes off, looks like no deal in time for reinstatements

 

[The General]

Say he's out for 10. What kind of offer would people think is reasonable right now?

I've got harvin for Gordon.

That's crazy. Must have been when it sounded like he was coming back immediately. Nice haul.

 

[The General]

Say he's out for 10. What kind of offer would people think is reasonable right now?

I traded Gordon & Terrance West for Rashad Jennings & Justin Hunter in my 12 team PPR. Just wasn't interested in holding till Week 12. My roster space is too valuable.

That's a good trade for you.

10 games is pretty rough with small benches during the bye weeks.

 

[damageinc]

Ben tate post a "Free Gordon" picture on his facebook page.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2197645-browns-ben-tate-posts-free-gordon-picture-on-facebook

 

[SameSongNDance]

I ended up trading Ben Tate for Ray Rice right before they updated Tate's expected return date earlier in the week. Then, right as the news about Rice's indefinite suspension broke I was able to squeeze out a deal for Gordon. Yesterday, before news of Gordon's expected 10 game suspension began to spread I was able to trade him for AP straight up. Finally, late last night, before the AP owner in my league could catch on, I was able snag Ben Tate, optimistic that he'd be back after the bye. Needless to say, that owner is super salty.

 

[shoecrew22]

I ended up trading Ben Tate for Ray Rice right before they updated Tate's expected return date earlier in the week. Then, right as the news about Rice's indefinite suspension broke I was able to squeeze out a deal for Gordon. Yesterday, before news of Gordon's expected 10 game suspension began to spread I was able to trade him for AP straight up. Finally, late last night, before the AP owner in my league could catch on, I was able snag Ben Tate, optimistic that he'd be back after the bye. Needless to say, that owner is super salty.

####### lol

 

[Ilov80s]

I ended up trading Ben Tate for Ray Rice right before they updated Tate's expected return date earlier in the week. Then, right as the news about Rice's indefinite suspension broke I was able to squeeze out a deal for Gordon. Yesterday, before news of Gordon's expected 10 game suspension began to spread I was able to trade him for AP straight up. Finally, late last night, before the AP owner in my league could catch on, I was able snag Ben Tate, optimistic that he'd be back after the bye. Needless to say, that owner is super salty.

Does you entire league have ADD or something? Gordon for Peterson straight up? That makes no sense.

 

[Banger]

10 is probably just too heavy for my tastes. If your roster is struggling a bit elsewhere like mine is at RB it's a long way to keep dead weight on your roster for in the hopes he instantly returns to his stride for the last 5-6 games.

8 and I'm in without hesitation in both my leagues

Went back and forth on this all morning but ultimately gave up Ertz for him in our keeper league. Won't get much from him this year but hope fully can sneak into the playoffs or trade him for a ransom to someone else in the playoffs. It will be tough juggling a dead spot but the potential payoff I felt was worth it.

 

[TartanLion]

I ended up trading Ben Tate for Ray Rice right before they updated Tate's expected return date earlier in the week. Then, right as the news about Rice's indefinite suspension broke I was able to squeeze out a deal for Gordon. Yesterday, before news of Gordon's expected 10 game suspension began to spread I was able to trade him for AP straight up. Finally, late last night, before the AP owner in my league could catch on, I was able snag Ben Tate, optimistic that he'd be back after the bye. Needless to say, that owner is super salty.

Funnily enough i am in Amaterdam outside my hotel smoking a doob and I read this and just LOLd big time haha

 

[rockaction]

Ben tate post a "Free Gordon" picture on his facebook page.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2197645-browns-ben-tate-posts-free-gordon-picture-on-facebook

That might become my avatar for everything.

 

[DansRams]

So Soulfly was, ultimately, correct.

Well to borrow/paraphrase one of Soulfly's expressions from earlier in this thread:"as of this moment, Josh Gordon is playing zero games in 2014;" so he is not correct, yet.

Also, once again, we see lazy journalism at work. No new policy is in place, nor has one been agreed to. The team reps essentially told the NFLPA "we'll agree to these terms, if the NFL wants to." The NFL hasn't responded, and from what I can tell (and who knows if that's correct, since there are so many conflicting reports, one after the other), they haven't even actually begun to deal with the possibility of how to deal with currently suspended players.

Souljaays was right and you and the other killer B's (Bazinga, Butkiss) were wrong. Just admit it and move on. Backpedals, spin and sematics won't change 200 pages of you three calling everyone dumb for rostering Gordon.

I never saw one of those guys post that anyone was dumb for rostering Gordon...and Souljaays was about as close to being right as your post is accurate. Shame on you. You are generally better than that

 

[bolzano]

Hitler's Reaction to Gordon's Suspension

 

[boots11234]

I ended up trading Ben Tate for Ray Rice right before they updated Tate's expected return date earlier in the week. Then, right as the news about Rice's indefinite suspension broke I was able to squeeze out a deal for Gordon. Yesterday, before news of Gordon's expected 10 game suspension began to spread I was able to trade him for AP straight up. Finally, late last night, before the AP owner in my league could catch on, I was able snag Ben Tate, optimistic that he'd be back after the bye. Needless to say, that owner is super salty.

Cool story bro.