WR Josh Gordon, KC (17 Viewers)

[menobrown]

It's all related, but no need to continue engaging me. You agreed to disagree. 

I did not and do not need feel the need to point out all the points you made are wrong so I agreed to disagree on THOSE points, which again have zero to do with whether or not Gordon will pay off this year.

You can continue to make up stuff that could impact Gordon this season but here are only two things that matter:

1. Get reinstated

2. Get in football shape

That is all.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

He did not say random, he said prior, big difference.  It's not uncommon at all for employers to drug test upon hire for even the  lowest level of jobs. All of them reserve the right to randomly drug test later but rarely do that for lower level jobs. I mean even bus boys need to be relied upon, agree or not this is one of the things employers believe is indicative of how much you can be relied upon.

Absolutely. When I worked in health care (pharmacy division for a decade) they did an "at time of hire" test.

once hired, we weren't tested again, but everyone from the custodian to the receptionist to the warehousemen were tested at time of hire.

and many of the contractor firms test their candidates. They don't want to risk their reputation placing a temp in a job and have them turn out to be a druggie. 

Very common hiring practice. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I did not and do not need feel the need to point out all the points you made are wrong so I agreed to disagree on THOSE points, which again have zero to do with whether or not Gordon will pay off this year.

You can continue to make up stuff that could impact Gordon this season but here are only two things that matter:

1. Get reinstated

2. Get in football shape

That is all.

You agreed to disagree.

That ended our conversation.

If you had so much more to say to me, perhaps you shouldn't have done that. 

But you did, so I'm not bothering to read your posts. Have a nice day. 

 

[mozzy84]

He did not say random, he said prior, big difference.  It's not uncommon at all for employers to drug test upon hire for even the  lowest level of jobs. All of them reserve the right to randomly drug test later but rarely do that for lower level jobs. I mean even bus boys need to be relied upon, agree or not this is one of the things employers believe is indicative of how much you can be relied upon.

LOL ok. Its super uncommon for golf courses and restaurants to piss test you prior, there is zero reason too and most would never find employees to actually work there. Teachers don't even get a pre-screening in Minnesota anyways.

I just used the doctor as a reference as being one that should get randoms and they don't. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

LOL ok. Its super uncommon for golf courses and restaurants to piss test you prior, there is zero reason too and most would never find employees to actually work there. Teachers don't even get a pre-screening in Minnesota anyways.

I just used the doctor as a reference as being one that should get randoms and they don't. 

Teachers don't because of unions I believe. I know many teachers in CA & that's what I gather anyway.

likewise in healthcare - while there's a time of hire test for many, the union rules of UHW preclude employers for testing without cause. And management generally falls under the same set of rules, so non-union don't get tested either.

but if, say, a warehouseman drives into a pole or pallet rack, they can send him for a screening for cause.

not sure how it would work for a teacher - it's all about the union contract at that point. 

 

[JAMES!]

He did not say random, he said prior, big difference.  It's not uncommon at all for employers to drug test upon hire for even the  lowest level of jobs. All of them reserve the right to randomly drug test later but rarely do that for lower level jobs. I mean even bus boys need to be relied upon, agree or not this is one of the things employers believe is indicative of how much you can be relied upon.

I thought you were kidding. I'm still not sure if this is serious.

 

[menobrown]

LOL ok. Its super uncommon for golf courses and restaurants to piss test you prior, there is zero reason too and most would never find employees to actually work there. Teachers don't even get a pre-screening in Minnesota anyways.

I just used the doctor as a reference as being one that should get randoms and they don't. 

No it's not super uncommon especially if it's a national chain. All of them have drug testing polices but usually leave it up to individual franchise to monitor. 

Where have you people been? My first job was in 1989 and I got drug tested to be a bag boy at what is now Albertson's, a policy they still have today.

I thought you were kidding. I'm still not sure if this is serious.

Huh, what do you think I"m kidding about?

 

[JAMES!]

Huh, what do you think I"m kidding about?

What you wrote about drug tests for bus boys and golf course employees.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Not for nothing, but with 500,000+ views I'm pretty sure this topic alone is funding the FBG Forums. 

 

 

[greyhorse]

Neither does mine. 

I was drug tested prior to a college summer job working at a golf course
I was drug tested prior to a high school job as a bus boy 
I was drug tested prior to my job in the health field
Point is, you don't need to operate heavy machinery to be drug tested at your job


Why do you think the NFL drug tests? 

It is absurd yes but also seems normal to drug test for these kind of jobs.

to work at a golf course or be a bus boy? You gotta be kidding me.  Hell doctors don't even get randoms right now...

I think it's pretty ridiculous to be drug tested to work at a golf course or to be a freaking bus boy.  Was it standard of practice for every single employee at those entry level jobs?  Perhaps they have been burned in the past by young kids working for them before so that was why.

Needless to say, this thread has once again gone off the rails...

I'm thinking more and more that Higgins kid or whatever his name is will be the one to target if you must have a Cleveland receiver.

 

[BassNBrew]

Read the suggestions in this thread to pick him up. Passed in favor of just Nelson whined netted me a victory

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I'm thinking more and more that Higgins kid or whatever his name is will be the one to target if you must have a Cleveland receiver.

Well you know what they say, "you can never have enough Cleveland Browns on your team if you want to win at FFB". 

-said no one ever 

 

[ATB]

Well you know what they say, "you can never have enough Cleveland Browns on your team if you want to win at FFB". 

-said no one ever 

Except when that Brown is Josh Gordon... 

 

[Interseptopus]

Where do you live that you've been drug tested so much? It's absurd.

You didn't answer my question: why do you thin kthe NFL drug tests? It's an honest question, because you have a beef with their drug policy so why do you think they even have a drug policy? I'll give you my answer first I guess because I have a busy afternoon:

I believe the NFL drug tests because:

1. it's got an "image" to uphold, which leads to the third point
2. They feel people on drugs would not be as good at the sport as those who are not on drugs
3. If their off field image and on field performances suffer, their revenues could be crippled. 

They are a private business, they have every right to do that

Here's my take on Josh Gordon:

He knew the NFL's drug policy before he was employed. He also knew about it after he was warned, suspended, and permanently suspended. He still decided to smoke weed. Why? (again, honest question). Is weed and being high better than millions of dollars? 

He has been given chance after chance after chance to stop smoking weed. It's pretty simple: you can be a millionaire if you stop smoking weed. That's all. But he keeps blowing these chances. The NFL has seemed to do everything they could to get him back into the league and to deal with his addiction problem. 

If "weed is not addictive" as many people argue (it's just weed, you can't get addicted, etc) then how come he can't stop? He wants to play football. He'd make a lot of money playing football... why can't he stop? 

To say "let the man play" and to act like it's the NFL being the bad guy not letting Gordon play because it's "just weed" is pointing the finger at the wrong person.
The finger should be pointed at Gordon: JUST STOP SMOKING WEED!  If it's "just weed" and not addictive it should be easy for him. 

99% of everyone else in the league seems to be able to abide by this rule, or find a way around it, in some shape or form. But Gordon doesn't seem to have playing in the NFL as a priority in his life. So who should we really point the finger at. 

The NFL isn't the bad guy here... IMO they seem to have gone above and beyond to do what they can to get a guy such as Gordon back into the league. And not because they are humanitarians; it's because Josh Gordon would be amazing for the NFL. They can make a lot money off of him. 

 

[Interseptopus]

I think it's pretty ridiculous to be drug tested to work at a golf course or to be a freaking bus boy.  Was it standard of practice for every single employee at those entry level jobs?  Perhaps they have been burned in the past by young kids working for them before so that was why.

Needless to say, this thread has once again gone off the rails...

I'm thinking more and more that Higgins kid or whatever his name is will be the one to target if you must have a Cleveland receiver.

Sure, might be ridiculous but if I don't like it maybe I find a job that doesn't drug test? 

 

[Chaka]

I believe the NFL drug tests because:

2. They feel people on drugs would not be as good at the sport as those who are not on drugs

Or they think players on drugs would perform better than players who are not on drugs.

 

[JAMES!]

You didn't answer my question: why do you thin kthe NFL drug tests? It's an honest question, because you have a beef with their drug policy so why do you think they even have a drug policy? I'll give you my answer first I guess because I have a busy afternoon:

I believe the NFL drug tests because:

1. it's got an "image" to uphold, which leads to the third point
2. They feel people on drugs would not be as good at the sport as those who are not on drugs
3. If their off field image and on field performances suffer, their revenues could be crippled. 

They are a private business, they have every right to do that

Here's my take on Josh Gordon:

He knew the NFL's drug policy before he was employed. He also knew about it after he was warned, suspended, and permanently suspended. He still decided to smoke weed. Why? (again, honest question). Is weed and being high better than millions of dollars? 

He has been given chance after chance after chance to stop smoking weed. It's pretty simple: you can be a millionaire if you stop smoking weed. That's all. But he keeps blowing these chances. The NFL has seemed to do everything they could to get him back into the league and to deal with his addiction problem. 

If "weed is not addictive" as many people argue (it's just weed, you can't get addicted, etc) then how come he can't stop? He wants to play football. He'd make a lot of money playing football... why can't he stop? 

To say "let the man play" and to act like it's the NFL being the bad guy not letting Gordon play because it's "just weed" is pointing the finger at the wrong person.
The finger should be pointed at Gordon: JUST STOP SMOKING WEED!  If it's "just weed" and not addictive it should be easy for him. 

99% of everyone else in the league seems to be able to abide by this rule, or find a way around it, in some shape or form. But Gordon doesn't seem to have playing in the NFL as a priority in his life. So who should we really point the finger at. 

The NFL isn't the bad guy here... IMO they seem to have gone above and beyond to do what they can to get a guy such as Gordon back into the league. And not because they are humanitarians; it's because Josh Gordon would be amazing for the NFL. They can make a lot money off of him. 

I don't really feel like taking the time to debate your post point by point but I believe the latest suspension (1 year>indefinite) was because Gordon had a few drinks while he was still under the NFL substance abuse protocol. As a condition of his reinstatement that year he couldn't drink alcohol for the rest of the season. So he goes to Vegas with teammates on Jan 2nd of that year, after their season had ended but not before the NFL season ended, had drinks on the plane, was piss tested for booze and failed.

 

[Interseptopus]

I don't really feel like taking the time to debate your post point by point but I believe the latest suspension (1 year>indefinite) was because Gordon had a few drinks while he was still under the NFL substance abuse protocol. As a condition of his reinstatement that year he couldn't drink alcohol for the rest of the season. So he goes to Vegas with teammates on Jan 2nd of that year, after their season had ended but not before the NFL season ended, had drinks on the plane, was piss tested for booze and failed.

Seems you don't want to answer my question as to why the NFL has a drug testing policy. 
The reason I ask it is because you seem to have a complaint about it. I'd hope you'd have full awareness of why the NFL has a drug policy so that you can form an educated opinion on it. Regardless, I'll move on... 

While I can agree that having a few drinks isn't a big deal, I will stipulate that it isn't a big deal for anyone not on probation of some kind. If someone is on legal probation (or work probation) and that involves staying sober from drugs and alcohol, and they break those rules, do we blame the rule makers? No, we blame them. He knows the rules. He chooses not to follow them. What's wrong in today's society is too many people blame everyone else for their own choices. 

Gordon, and his fans, have no one to blame but Gordon himself. If this was a priority in his life he would do anything and everything to meet the requirements to get back into the league. 

Let's say the league says, "well... good try Gordon, for being such a trooper we will let you back in and you can do all the drugs you want." What good comes from him making millions yet still being a user? Is that good for Gordon? No. Is it good for the NFL? No. 


I was just alarmed at how much you seemed to be blaming the NFL's policy for Gordon not playing, rather than looking at the obvious, Gordon and his own choices. 

 

[TheBaylorKid]

Came here for Josh Gordon news, left with a bunch of opinions about the NFL drug policy.

 

[JamieMurphy]

I don't really feel like taking the time to debate your post point by point but I believe the latest suspension (1 year>indefinite) was because Gordon had a few drinks while he was still under the NFL substance abuse protocol. As a condition of his reinstatement that year he couldn't drink alcohol for the rest of the season. So he goes to Vegas with teammates on Jan 2nd of that year, after their season had ended but not before the NFL season ended, had drinks on the plane, was piss tested for booze and failed.

Exactly. It was a "gotcha" thing. The kid was 21, his season was over, and that was pretty heavy handed.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Came here for Josh Gordon news, left with a bunch of opinions about the NFL drug policy.

That happens. 

The Josh Gordon news in a nutshell:

• suspended indefinitely 

• Gordon apparently went to rehab, again, for another 90 day treatment program which he gets out of shortly.

• Gordon can reapply for reinstatement on the 21st (or 22nd, I foget which)  after being denied earlier this year.

• Goodell has an indefinite amount of time to gather evidence and make a determination. 

• The NFL has stated that nothing has "made it to Roger's desk" at this point, adding "Gordon is not actively being considered for reinstatement" (but to be fair, he hadn't reapplied yet and was still in rehab). 

• the Browns have released no statement throughout.

• Gordon's agent hasn't released a statement. 

• Gordon's update about the reinstatement application date came from his trainer/life-coach Montgomery. 

That, and 392 pages of debate, BS, jokes and speculation and you're all caught up.



hth

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Exactly. It was a "gotcha" thing. The kid was 21, his season was over, and that was pretty heavy handed.

On the one hand, I agree. It's heavy handed for sure.

on the other hand, the way it was framed makes it more of a gotcha than it was. 

Another way to look at it is that Gordon knew he was going to be tested and drank anyway. 

I went to a wedding last night. It was 1.5 hours away, and I volunteered to be the safe ride. I wasn't feeling like getting tanked anyway, and I wanted my friends to get home safely. 

So with an open bar, I drank water, coffee, and an ice cold Mexican Coke. So good. 

Anyway, that was a choice. I knew that if I also drank, (and in addition to safety concerns) I could get a DUI if I got caught.

So I chose to not drink. 

Josh Gordon made a poor choice that led to his current situation. He made that bad choice because he's an addict. 

I hope for Josh's sake his rehab works miracles. I hate seeing a young player who's so talented waste away prime years. Gordon is a generational talent at wide receier. 

Imagine if he'd not had all this happen - he's playing 15 games a year average. Probably on track to shatter the yardage records. It's seriously tragic. 

 

[TheBaylorKid]

That happens. 

The Josh Gordon news in a nutshell:

• suspended indefinitely 

• Gordon apparently went to rehab, again, for another 90 day treatment program which he gets out of shortly.

• Gordon can reapply for reinstatement on the 21st (or 22nd, I foget which)  after being denied earlier this year.

• Goodell has an indefinite amount of time to gather evidence and make a determination. 

• The NFL has stated that nothing has "made it to Roger's desk" at this point, adding "Gordon is not actively being considered for reinstatement" (but to be fair, he hadn't reapplied yet and was still in rehab). 

• the Browns have released no statement throughout.

• Gordon's agent hasn't released a statement. 

• Gordon's update about the reinstatement application date came from his trainer/life-coach Montgomery. 

That, and 392 pages of debate, BS, jokes and speculation and you're all caught up.



hth

Thank you

 

[davearm]

Right - I think he's cost the Browns money. They invested time (money) in him, they paid him while he was on the field, they likely took a big hit in Gordon jersey sales as compared to other superstar WRs in the league (soulfly bought 1,326 of them, sure but) they had a less competitive on-field product without him (ticket sales, ratings) and they lost the ability to deal him for draft picks or players which also has financial implications.

i believe Gordon's repeated suspensions have cost the Browns money as a franchise 

TV rights revenue is shared equally by the 32 NFL teams.  Whatever impact Josh Gordon's absence had on ratings hurt all 32 teams the same amount. (Which is likely near zero, but I digress.)

Same story with merchandise and licensing.  Those Gordon jerseys that didn't get sold hurt the Seahawks and Patriots just as much as the Browns.

Ticket sales are split too, 60/40 with the visiting team, so there you only overestimate the impact by about 40%.

Since you can't trade players or picks for cash, that financial impact is zero.

Meanwhile, the Browns got a tremendous ROI for the money they actually paid Gordon to play football, if you look at it from the perspective of $/DVOA (or insert your preferred performance metric).

The Browns surely suffered in other ways from Gordon's inability to keep himself out of trouble, but they didn't really suffer financially.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

TV rights revenue is shared equally by the 32 NFL teams.  Whatever impact Josh Gordon's absence had on ratings hurt all 32 teams the same amount. (Which is likely near zero, but I digress.)

Same story with merchandise and licensing.  Those Gordon jerseys that didn't get sold hurt the Seahawks and Patriots just as much as the Browns.

Ticket sales are split too, 60/40 with the visiting team, so there you only overestimate the impact by about 40%.

Since you can't trade players or picks for cash, that financial impact is zero.

Meanwhile, the Browns got a tremendous ROI for the money they actually paid Gordon to play football, if you look at it from the perspective of $/DVOA (or insert your preferred performance metric).

The Browns surely suffered in other ways from Gordon's inability to keep himself out of trouble, but they didn't really suffer financially.

Ok fair enough. My bad. I thought some of that stuff was still localized but I guess I was wrong. 



As for the draft pick I meant more tha value of the pick itself - I did not think one could trade picks for $

 

[Sebowski]

My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Josh Gordon pass out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious.

 

[greyhorse]

My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Josh Gordon pass out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious.

Prepare to start trending on Yahoo, this is going to go viral.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Prepare to start trending on Yahoo, this is going to go viral.

I dunno - I chuckled, but it's been a while since Ferris Bueller. #SaveFerris

 

[thehoch]

TV rights revenue is shared equally by the 32 NFL teams.  Whatever impact Josh Gordon's absence had on ratings hurt all 32 teams the same amount. (Which is likely near zero, but I digress.)

Same story with merchandise and licensing.  Those Gordon jerseys that didn't get sold hurt the Seahawks and Patriots just as much as the Browns.

Ticket sales are split too, 60/40 with the visiting team, so there you only overestimate the impact by about 40%.

Since you can't trade players or picks for cash, that financial impact is zero.

Meanwhile, the Browns got a tremendous ROI for the money they actually paid Gordon to play football, if you look at it from the perspective of $/DVOA (or insert your preferred performance metric).

The Browns surely suffered in other ways from Gordon's inability to keep himself out of trouble, but they didn't really suffer financially.

I have no issue with anything you said, as you point out you can't actually calculate Gordon's return to an increase in revenue, but with that said, in the league's and owners' eyes they want headlines and they want to try and garner attention by pushing star players. Monday Night Football intro is a montage of every single star player from around the league and the only reason they do that is because they know stars are what brings people to watch the games. So at the end of the day, with the league seeing ratings dropping and half empty stadiums, they want to change that narrative and fast. Josh Gordon was a sensation a few years ago.....if he's ready to go, marijuana won't get in the way. He'll get another chance and if he f#$ks it up again.....oh well, at least he's not a wife beater.

 

[King of the Jungle]

Can anyone even confirm that he has an agent now? Last I remember reading is that is agent left him.

 

[Sebowski]

I dunno - I chuckled, but it's been a while since Ferris Bueller. #SaveFerris

Don't tell that to dominoes pizza

 

[Bronco Billy]

I have no issue with anything you said, as you point out you can't actually calculate Gordon's return to an increase in revenue, but with that said, in the league's and owners' eyes they want headlines and they want to try and garner attention by pushing star players. Monday Night Football intro is a montage of every single star player from around the league and the only reason they do that is because they know stars are what brings people to watch the games. So at the end of the day, with the league seeing ratings dropping and half empty stadiums, they want to change that narrative and fast. Josh Gordon was a sensation a few years ago.....if he's ready to go, marijuana won't get in the way. He'll get another chance and if he f#$ks it up again.....oh well, at least he's not a wife beater.

So Josh Gordon is the key to the NFL turning around its suddenly waning popularity?

Well, I never saw that coming.  Better reinstate him and fast!

 

[thehoch]

So Josh Gordon is the key to the NFL turning around its suddenly waning popularity?

Well, I never saw that coming.  Better reinstate him and fast!

Yeah that's exactly what I said. But I didn't say the league needs more star players....

 

[Interseptopus]

LOL ok. Its super uncommon for golf courses and restaurants to piss test you prior, there is zero reason too and most would never find employees to actually work there. Teachers don't even get a pre-screening in Minnesota anyways.

I just used the doctor as a reference as being one that should get randoms and they don't. 

Had a cousin who lost a teaching job here in WI because he tested positive for pot. Idiot couldn't stop smoking for a few weeks. He knew it was coming, couldn't help himself. 
We are tested at time of hire but not since. I do not believe they do test anyone after time of hire. Everyone in a health care facility gets tested at time of hire. One employer even took hair from me

Regardless, this thread has gone off the rails, my fault. 

 

[Interseptopus]

Don't tell that to dominoes pizza

hate that commercial. hate that movie

 

[spider321]

Had a cousin who lost a teaching job here in WI because he tested positive for pot. Idiot couldn't stop smoking for a few weeks. He knew it was coming, couldn't help himself. 
We are tested at time of hire but not since. I do not believe they do test anyone after time of hire. Everyone in a health care facility gets tested at time of hire. One employer even took hair from me

Regardless, this thread has gone off the rails, my fault. 

No. By all means, continue.

Gordon is never going to play football again, we might as well discuss something.  Lol

 

[davearm]

I have no issue with anything you said, as you point out you can't actually calculate Gordon's return to an increase in revenue, but with that said, in the league's and owners' eyes they want headlines and they want to try and garner attention by pushing star players. Monday Night Football intro is a montage of every single star player from around the league and the only reason they do that is because they know stars are what brings people to watch the games. So at the end of the day, with the league seeing ratings dropping and half empty stadiums, they want to change that narrative and fast. Josh Gordon was a sensation a few years ago.....if he's ready to go, marijuana won't get in the way. He'll get another chance and if he f#$ks it up again.....oh well, at least he's not a wife beater.

Those are all fair points, but irrelevant to the Gordon topic.  Josh Gordon is never going to be one of those stars the league is promoting.  You'll never see him in that MNF montage.

 

[Interseptopus]

No. By all means, continue.

Gordon is never going to play football again, we might as well discuss something.  Lol

I was just going to edit my post to say something like, "well we won't be talking about Gordon so who cares if I derail this discussion"

 

[dagwood]

I have no issue with anything you said, as you point out you can't actually calculate Gordon's return to an increase in revenue, but with that said, in the league's and owners' eyes they want headlines and they want to try and garner attention by pushing star players. Monday Night Football intro is a montage of every single star player from around the league and the only reason they do that is because they know stars are what brings people to watch the games. So at the end of the day, with the league seeing ratings dropping and half empty stadiums, they want to change that narrative and fast. Josh Gordon was a sensation a few years ago.....if he's ready to go, marijuana won't get in the way. He'll get another chance and if he f#$ks it up again.....oh well, at least he's not a wife beater.

The NFL is concerned about their sponsors and their brand image.  They have taken a few black eyes over their enforcement of personal conduct policy.  The rules were collectively bargained.  Goodell can do just about whatever he wants when he wants.  The complaints center around a lack of consistency in implementing the policy (ex Josh Brown gets 1 game while E. Elliott gets 6 games).  Now Josh Brown has 6 games.  The list is endless and their is an appearance that the level and penalty and level crime are not necessarily in sync.  Goodell wants these issues to just go away IMO.  So I BELIEVE he will move faster rather than slower.  This does not mean he will reinstate Gordon.  I am sure he can find any number of reasons to justify not reinstating him.  Or he may reinstate him.  But once he decides, people will stop discussing it.  The Gordon topic has not gone viral the way the Kaepernick or Ray Rice topic has and the mainline media is not addressing it at all, but its out there on social media.  So I think we will get a relatively quick resolution, not necessarily this week but not 60-90 days either.  Just my two cents.

 

[Mavis]

No. By all means, continue.

Gordon is never going to play football again, we might as well discuss something.  Lol

True, he may not play, but updates on him should come soon, I see a lot of people talking about themselves and nothing to do with Gordon from some who typically derail the discussion, I hope they wont continue to ruin the thread and say things such as they want to derail the thread. People are literally talking pizza in this thread. 

With Colemans injury, if reinstated, he might matter. 

 

[Mavis]

That happens. 

The Josh Gordon news in a nutshell:

• suspended indefinitely 

• Gordon apparently went to rehab, again, for another 90 day treatment program which he gets out of shortly.

• Gordon can reapply for reinstatement on the 21st (or 22nd, I foget which)  after being denied earlier this year.

• Goodell has an indefinite amount of time to gather evidence and make a determination. 

• The NFL has stated that nothing has "made it to Roger's desk" at this point, adding "Gordon is not actively being considered for reinstatement" (but to be fair, he hadn't reapplied yet and was still in rehab). 

• the Browns have released no statement throughout.

• Gordon's agent hasn't released a statement. 

• Gordon's update about the reinstatement application date came from his trainer/life-coach Montgomery. 

That, and 392 pages of debate, BS, jokes and speculation and you're all caught up.



hth

Solid!

 

[apalmer]

The NFL is concerned about their sponsors and their brand image.  They have taken a few black eyes over their enforcement of personal conduct policy.  The rules were collectively bargained.  Goodell can do just about whatever he wants when he wants.  The complaints center around a lack of consistency in implementing the policy (ex Josh Brown gets 1 game while E. Elliott gets 6 games).  Now Josh Brown has 6 games.  The list is endless and their is an appearance that the level and penalty and level crime are not necessarily in sync.  Goodell wants these issues to just go away IMO.  So I BELIEVE he will move faster rather than slower.  This does not mean he will reinstate Gordon.  I am sure he can find any number of reasons to justify not reinstating him.  Or he may reinstate him.  But once he decides, people will stop discussing it.  The Gordon topic has not gone viral the way the Kaepernick or Ray Rice topic has and the mainline media is not addressing it at all, but its out there on social media.  So I think we will get a relatively quick resolution, not necessarily this week but not 60-90 days either.  Just my two cents.

How many times does he have to decide it for this to happen? So far, every time he's decided, the kool-aid drinkers say "but if Gordon does X, then he'll be able to play again."

 

[dagwood]

How many times does he have to decide it for this to happen? So far, every time he's decided, the kool-aid drinkers say "but if Gordon does X, then he'll be able to play again."

Probably at least one more time.

 

[dagwood]

Probably at least one more time.

The NFL is a mercenary league.  A team will take a look at you if you can play.  The better you play, the more tolerant they are of off the field transgressions.

 

[flysack]

Request to change thread title to -

Josh Gordon - come for the updates, stay for the inane pissing matches

 

[flysack]

The NFL is a mercenary league.  A team will take a look at you if you can play.  The better you play, the more tolerant they are of off the field transgressions.

I can't even. 

 

[dagwood]

Request to change thread title to -

Josh Gordon - come for the updates, stay for the inane pissing matches

lol

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Request to change thread title to -

Josh Gordon - come for the updates, stay for the inane pissing matches

 

 

[joey]

Here's how I'm going to handle this thread moving forward...

If I see the last post is by Faust, I'll click on the thread.

Otherwise, I won't bother.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Another way to look at it is that Gordon knew he was going to be tested and drank anyway.  

His defense was that he was told that he could not drink until the end of the season. The Browns season had ended. But the NFL considers the end of the season in February.