This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I didn't mean it like that, in your league dropping Eli is a no-harm-no-foul move. I'm just wondering if there isn't a better option that could actually help you this season.
I do not think there is anyone I am missing out on as of now. Perhaps that will change. With 9 bench spots and carrying only one QB, K, and D/ST my depth is adequate and once Doug Martin comes back I arguably will have a better option to drop (Quizz Rodgers) if I have some one I want to add.
I'm not so sure, I see the real target #'s, from the past. 
But if ya give me my choice of guys who may see five targets? 
The man would rank up there, especially if required too decide, one which scores. 
Basically, a Stud ya wanna start, eh. Thank-you for the posts though. 
I'm not sure I would have minded missing out so much, but I had him from the start.. 
I hope not.
Did you not notice how long the Elliott case dragged out before the league announced the suspension?
reading this post was like watching Saturday morning cartoons back in the day!While, I'm back on board..
One did something wrong to women and they gathered evidence and did what they had to do.
To be accurate, that only really applies if he's wearing Browns orange, which I'm a bit skeptical of.
So your take here is that the nature of the infraction dictates how quickly the league must adjudicate it.
In my opinion, this will never, ever happen. The NFL will not allow themselves to be exposed no matter how much sense it might make.
In the eyes of the league office it's an infraction that creates exposure for the shield.
The blowback on the league won't be much different if the headline is "Former NFL player Josh Gordon..." versus "NFL player Josh Gordon...". Imho of course.
I think it's vastly different if the NFL is perceived to have cared more about profits by rushing with reinstating him than being appropriately concerned about his sobriety by taking things slowly with his path back to the playing field.
Maybe for his own personal well being?
I don't think anybody disagrees that he won't get a shot at reinstatement. But Goodell is under no obligation to rush things. Goodell seems intent on keeping problem athletes OUT of the league, not trying to bring them back in. What's the benefit to rushing to make a judgment on reinstatement? He's going to have to carefully evaluate Gordon and his home situation. There was one article that said he hasn't separated himself yet from all the bad influences in his life. If that's the case, there is no hope for Gordon.
One motivation would be the opposite of what many are touting in here: that by leaving him waiting, Goodell is contributing to his lack of structure that is resulting in relapses. I know that's a bit ridiculous but it's as sound an argument as "Goodell doesn't want 'troublemakers' in the league to protect the NFL's image." There's always a flip-side to that coin, especially in a case like Gordon. He's had very minor infractions and appears to be near getting a death-penalty from the league.
This, to me, is the most telling indeed.
That was the story last year. That "away from the structure of the league Gordon would be influenced by negative people in his social corcles". His agent, and the Browns made that argument.
So agree. Why haven't the Browns said anything? I think last year after the suspension and then he went off to rehab just before he was about to come back, I thought I remember the Browns saying they were closing the book. Then I think in the offseason they lightened their stance.
That's right… Thanks for clarifying. I forgot that he missed the test, but you're correct that the assumption was he skipped it because he would've popped positive.
No way the Browns take him back IMO. They have a young QB and are rebuilding...you just don't invite the guy who has let you down several times back into an environment that is trying to change. They will release him immediately IMO unless there is someone out there who would offer something for some reason. I don't blame them for not making statements....they are moving on.
People think there is some law that says the commish has to make a decision within 60 days. In reality, it is 60 days from when they get all the information the league requested to prove that PLAYER X has conformed to the reinstatement requirements in order to be able to make a decision. So it could be records, interviews, meeting with people, etc. The league rarely ever decides and announces anything in 60 days.
Wow - so in theory, they could spend 6 months gathering data, conducting interviews, evaluating evidence, etc, and THEN take 60 days to make a decision?
This would make sense. Gordon last applied for reinstatement March 1st. The NFL denied him on May 15th. So obviously more than 60 days.
This is only if Gordon's team hasn't been in contact with the NFL and Goodell prior to his proactive moves to go to rehab and secure an athletic mentor.
And we've seen nothing from the Browns to indicate that this happened.
Not calling you out spefically, as I've seen this speculation posted a couple times, so I googled a bit.
That is the very last NFL statement on this.
Ouch, does your backside hurt?! Maybe you made the lopsided trade because you wanted to clear room for Josh Gordon badly...
No reason whatsoever that an agreement of this sort would announced for the public.
