ghostguy123
Footballguy
If the league comes out and tells us what is happening, I won't believe them either.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
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!
WR Josh Gordon, KC (12 Viewers)
- Thread starter Matt Waldman
- Start date
Concept Coop
Footballguy
What would you say? "After almost 100 years and millions of dollars trying to prove the plant substantially harmful--they think they've found something! Check out this link and ignore the sample size shortcomings!"?
I think G123's stance is a lot more clear than yours, personally. The study provided a good skim, however.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
And most of that research assumed the plant would be SMOKED, but now ya don't even need to do that.
Last edited by a moderator:
ConnSKINS26
Footballguy
No, those are reporters reporting leaks. The NFL doesn't release anything officially until appeals are through. That won't stop Schefter from reporting on it if he hears about it though.
Soulfly3
Footballguy
Daryl Ruiter @ RuiterWrongFAN 49s
"We haven't been given a date but to be fair to us...we should know before training camp starts" - Pettine re: Gordon
Sounds super cut and dry. Right guys?
"We haven't been given a date but to be fair to us...we should know before training camp starts" - Pettine re: Gordon
Sounds super cut and dry. Right guys?
Ditka Butkus
Footballguy
I just read that as he doesn't know or have an inside track any more than us....And yes we all should know by training camp.
grateful zed
Footballguy
Dragon1952
Footballguy
ROYALWITCHEESE
Footballguy
You want to slowly torture Gordon? Cool. But he is right. The Browns deserve to know, as do Browns fans and NFL fans.
Dragon1952
Footballguy
ROYALWITCHEESE
Footballguy
obnoxious[ uhb-nok-shuhs ]
adjective
2. annoying or objectionable due to being a showoff or attracting undue attention to oneself: an obnoxious little brat.
I'm agreeing with you by the way.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dragon1952
Footballguy
My sincerest apologies.....In my drunken stupor I totally misinterpreted your post.
ROYALWITCHEESE
Footballguy
Hey it happens!Dragon1952 said:My sincerest apologies.....In my drunken stupor I totally misinterpreted your post.
ROYALWITCHEESE
Footballguy
That makes no sense. Them taking their time has nothing to do with the length of suspension.
cstu
Footballguy
Actually it does since Gordon wouldn't be able to even apply for reinstatement for one year after the suspension. The league doesn't start the process until the player applies for reinstatement and it can take months.
In Tanard Jackson's case he was suspended August 2012, applied August 2013, reinstated 8 months later in May 2014 and missed two full seasons.
Anyone ever heard this Gibbs guy break a story where a guy was reported to be suspended for a year, then wasn't, before it was made public?
me neither.
guess why.
J/K-seriously, do you have a link? Does he give any source/reason why the Browns are optimistic? Does he talk about a reduced suspension, or (dare to dream) no suspension at all?
Ditka Butkus
Footballguy
I'm starting to think they will find the Malaysian jetliner before we find out about Gordon's suspension.
donkshow
Footballguy
lod01
Footballguy
I get the sense that the NFL is trying to figure out how not to give this guy 1 year due to his season last year. If this was just some ham and egger WR, he would already be serving his suspension.
I don't know about that. Justin Blackmon has shown a lot of talent when he has played (albeit he hasn't put together a season like Gordon did); they still suspended him. I think they are just going through the process. We found out about the failed test before the NFL announced it. If the news hadn't "leaked," we probably would have gotten the report of the failed test, the appeal, the result of the appeal, and any suspension in relatively short order. It just seems like it is taking forever, because we got the first bit of news earlier than usual.
Soulfly3
Footballguy
Sorry, no link. It was on the radio, but Ill look around on twitter/espn sites, maybe Ill find it there.
eta:
@ESPNCleveland · Jun 17
.@BGSUGibbs on Josh Gordon situation: "I am getting a sense of optimism from the Browns." #HeyTony
Last edited by a moderator:
Bracie Smathers
Footballguy
Good news Soulfy3 
As I said earlier in this thread, the NFL never announces when they AREN'T going to suspend someone. If they had already decided they were going to suspend Gordon it would have already happened with the other announced suspensions.
More than likely their is some sort of suspension in the works but the delays indicate special circumstances with Gordon's case.
Last year the NFL had already handed down their suspension to Gordon and don't forget last year the NFL cut down his four game suspension to only two games. So they've already shown they felt their were 'special' circumstances with Gordon's case.
Factor in their marijiuna threshold is ridiculously low (ten times LOWER than legal limits) and how they had announced they were considering changing or lessoning the punishment for none PEDs specifially pot.
I don't think their is any other way to decipher this than the longer they delay handing down a suspension, the better for Josh Gordon.
As I said earlier in this thread, the NFL never announces when they AREN'T going to suspend someone. If they had already decided they were going to suspend Gordon it would have already happened with the other announced suspensions.
More than likely their is some sort of suspension in the works but the delays indicate special circumstances with Gordon's case.
Last year the NFL had already handed down their suspension to Gordon and don't forget last year the NFL cut down his four game suspension to only two games. So they've already shown they felt their were 'special' circumstances with Gordon's case.
Factor in their marijiuna threshold is ridiculously low (ten times LOWER than legal limits) and how they had announced they were considering changing or lessoning the punishment for none PEDs specifially pot.
I don't think their is any other way to decipher this than the longer they delay handing down a suspension, the better for Josh Gordon.
fridayfrenzy
Footballguy
Positive news on Gordon and Soulfly takes it for its worth. Negative news on Gordon and Soulfly discredits it as useless garbage (Schefter, Mary Kay Cabot, etc.).Soulfly3 said:
I don't own Gordon or care how long or if he is suspended, but the bias Soulfly shows on this topic is ridiculous.
Soulfly3
Footballguy
Spin
Footballguy
If nothing less, I am always entertained when Soulfy bumps this thread.
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
skill when I win, bad luck when I lose
LarryAllen'sJockstrap
Footballguy
I've been thinking along these same lines for a while now. Gordon established himself as a star last season; what would the NFL do to Demaryius Thomas, AJ Green or Julio Jones in the same situation. I still think he gets suspended, but I could see the NFL coming up with some reason to cut the length due to extenuating circumstances.lod01 said:
Catbird
Footballguy
I love Go
I love Gordon and want him to be playing. But its SO wrong if this is what's going on in the league offices and Goodell's mind. I doubt we'll ever know. If he gets 4 or 6 or 8 games, we'll be told there were special circumstances and maybe hear some lip service as to what those are, but we'll be left to our own conclusions on the real why. Giving teams a competitive advantage for financial reasons just isn't right (although I realize its the Browns) and players getting special treatment because they are talented just tells them they are special and its not a big deal if they violate compared to regular players. That encourages backsliding. Its just a horrible practice if money - league promotion through a great player - completely trumps equal treatment. And its unfortunate that we will probably never know how the decision really gets made?
Last edited by a moderator:
Soulfly3
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Bracie Smathers
Footballguy
William Faulkner from his novel the Sound and the Fury.
"They all talked at once their voices insistent and contradictory and impatient. Making of unreality a possibility then a probability then an incontrovertible fact as people will when their desires become words."
amnesiac
beer is good
sounds like you're describing yourself and Soulfly in regards to your unfounded optimism. the fact remains that we still don't know anything at this point.
jurb26
Footballguy
You would think the team would announce something like that.
zilladog
Footballguy
msommer
Footballguy
Chaka
Footballguy
I would say not until the official announcement is made. Might as well join soulfly and start reading tea leaves and throwing bones if you think length of time before announcement has any impact on the outcome.
Bamac
Footballguy
Even if that's true, we'll never hear it.
Bracie Smathers
Footballguy
My post above was after three different posters felt Gordon would not be suspended and began to suspicion the NFL would let him off due to preferential treatment.
A few months ago, I recall, cough-cough 'sane-sensible' Browns fans seeking out third rails when the Browns didn't hire their head coach in a timely enough manner for ESPN and the NFL network? Pretty silly, ridiculous, and weak, to bend to faux public outrage over not hiring a head coach just because f'ng ESPN says we took too long, boo f'ng hoo. Now vox populi think if the NFL reduces his suspension they have plotted the reduction due to preferential treatment.
Two questions for you.
1. If the NFL had already decided they were going to suspend Gordon a full year then why delay that announcement? Give a reasonable explanation because I can't think of any reason for the delay that makes sense if they had already decided he's gone for the full year.
2. If the NFL does not suspend Gordon for the full year do you feel a reduced suspension would be due to preferential treatment?
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
The appeals process and covering your bases for any potential backlash from the player or his representatives if you take away a year plus of salary.
I don't think reading into anything one way or the other right now makes any sense. We will know one way or the other soon - and no one should be shocked if its a year or if he sees no suspension at all.
ETA (to answer your second question): No, I do not.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bracie Smathers
Footballguy
The question was.
If they had already made the decision to suspend him for a full year, then why the delay?
You answered.
No, I do not.
??? I'm not busting yer chops, I'm honestly confused. EDIT: Ah you edited.
But your reply to the first part doesn't make sense due to the fact they've already handed down full-season suspensions so it doesn't make sense to arbitrarily say they are delaying announcing Gordon's suspension due to legal reason because they could take his salary but that same logic did not fit with the other full-season suspensions they handed down weeks ago.
Logically something is different with Gordon's case unless someone can come up with a reasonable explanation why their is a delay with the league announcing his suspension.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
I added the edit (and stated) that it was to answer your second question about "preferential treatment" (that was chopped off).
Bracie Smathers
Footballguy
I think we finally got caught-up on our EDITS.
amnesiac
beer is good
i don't believe you can read anything into the fact they haven't made an announcement yet.
my point is that trying to talk oneself into the timing of this thing being either a positive OR a negative is just spinning one's wheels.
it seems ridiculous to me that each side is pointing to the same evidence to "prove" their position, and i felt your quoting Faulkner was a bit over the top.
my point is that trying to talk oneself into the timing of this thing being either a positive OR a negative is just spinning one's wheels.
it seems ridiculous to me that each side is pointing to the same evidence to "prove" their position, and i felt your quoting Faulkner was a bit over the top.
