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)

iamkoza said:
given rapsheets understanding of the league year cut off... wouldnt letting gordon off the hook open a huge can of worms... if i was suspended in league year 2013 i'd want my gamechecks back if gordon gets out of his suspension?
Click to expand...
not his fault the league waited 5 months to actually hand down his suspension.

 
LawFitz said:
My high school had a policy that if any senior student was caught ditching during the last six weeks of school, he would be barred from walking at the year-end graduation ceremony. Every year, several seniors were banned by this rule, as it wasn't much of a deterrent for a lot of them from skipping senioritis laden year-end classes.

My senior year our class valedictorian, a known partier, was caught at the local McD's about 15 minutes before the start of the school's lunch hour by a school administrator. Word got out that he'd been caught and everyone wondered how the school would handle not having the valedictorian at the ceremony and cutting out his speech. Neither happened. He got to walk and gave his speech, because the school decided to change it's policy and set the valedictorian and all other ditchers from that year free, allowing them to attend their graduation. True story.

Rules are often bent and/or broken for valedictorians.

#FreeJoshGordon
Click to expand...
Can I get a "hell yes?"

 
LawFitz said:
My high school had a policy that if any senior student was caught ditching during the last six weeks of school, he would be barred from walking at the year-end graduation ceremony. Every year, several seniors were banned by this rule, as it wasn't much of a deterrent for a lot of them from skipping senioritis laden year-end classes.

My senior year our class valedictorian, a known partier, was caught at the local McD's about 15 minutes before the start of the school's lunch hour by a school administrator. Word got out that he'd been caught and everyone wondered how the school would handle not having the valedictorian at the ceremony and cutting out his speech. Neither happened. He got to walk and gave his speech, because the school decided to change it's policy and set the valedictorian and all other ditchers from that year free, allowing them to attend their graduation. True story.

Rules are often bent and/or broken for valedictorians.

#FreeJoshGordon
Click to expand...
My first year at the high school I currently teach at, a senior who was top-10 in his class, had received a D-1 football scholarship & was the son of our football team's offensive coordinator (and PE teacher) was caught pulling a "senior prank" where he and a bunch of buddies put super glue on the outside locks of the school. This happened right before the end of the year, and the punishment for vandalism of school property was a 2 week suspension, which meant they couldn't walk at the graduation ceremony.

This kid and his friends were not allowed to walk in the ceremony.

Rules are often not bent and/or broken for people at the top of their class.

What does this have to do with Josh Gordon? Nothing, but neither did your anecdote.

BTW-Gordon is neither a valedictorian, nor a student who was at the top of his class.

#FreeJoshGordonbutforgodsakebelogicalandstopgoingtoanyextremepossibletojustifyfreeingJoshGordon

 
bulger2holt said:
hotlanta said:
If they let Gordon back, then they are opening up the floodgates of everybody suspended since 2011 wanting back in. I don't see it happening with Gordon.
Click to expand...
True, but how many players are still suspended from back then?
Click to expand...
Exactly. Most of the group suspended from Gordon's time frame have already served their terms. NFL just needs to write the language in a way that only those players still serving suspensions are to be set free.

Worst case, they pay some relatively minor settlements to a small group of players that prove they fall within the same fail parameters as Gordon. A drop in the hat, if the powers that be want Gordon on the field at the end of all this.

Again, I think the $$$ question here is... Does the NFL want Josh Gordon to play in 2014? I think they do.

 
Captain Quinoa said:
iamkoza said:
given rapsheets understanding of the league year cut off... wouldnt letting gordon off the hook open a huge can of worms... if i was suspended in league year 2013 i'd want my gamechecks back if gordon gets out of his suspension?
Click to expand...
not his fault the league waited 5 months to actually hand down his suspension.
Click to expand...
he failed the test in LY 2013, it doesnt matter when the suspension is handed down. how can they give one guy a break who failed a test in LY 2013 but then not have to pay out $$ to other LY 2013 players who missed time in 2013 season?

 
LawFitz said:
bulger2holt said:
hotlanta said:
If they let Gordon back, then they are opening up the floodgates of everybody suspended since 2011 wanting back in. I don't see it happening with Gordon.
Click to expand...
True, but how many players are still suspended from back then?
Click to expand...
Exactly. Most of the group suspended from Gordon's time frame have already served their terms. NFL just needs to write the language in a way that only those players still serving suspensions are to be set free.

Worst case, they pay some relatively minor settlements to a small group of players that prove they fall within the same fail parameters as Gordon. A drop in the hat, if the powers that be want Gordon on the field at the end of all this.

Again, I think the $$$ question here is... Does the NFL want Josh Gordon to play in 2014? I think they do.
Click to expand...
Why? If they really wanted him to play, they could have just "lost" the test, or reduced his suspension, or otherwise allowed him to play. Again, I'm all for Gordon playing, but making stuff up that ignores the facts and evidence that we have is just pointless. Can you provide ANYTHING that would indicate that the NFL "WANTS" Gordon to play, other than your hunch?

 
hotlanta said:
shoecrew22 said:
hotlanta said:
If they let Gordon back, then they are opening up the floodgates of everybody suspended since 2011 wanting back in. I don't see it happening with Gordon.

We are getting set up for another disappointment folks.
Click to expand...
Your logic is flawed. If they let anyone back in they open the flood gates. Them simply saying 2014 season vs 2014 calander year doesnt change much.
Click to expand...
From the Plain Dealer:

Another source said that if the NFL and NFLPA allow Gordon, Welker and others who were suspended in 2014 to have their suspensions altered, others who have been banned since the new collective bargaining agreement went into effect in 2011 will be banging on the NFL's door.

"It opens up a whole can of worms for players who have been impacted by the policy,'' said one source. "They would be better off not letting anyone back in.''
Click to expand...
thank you... you proved my point.

letting anyone back in opens flood gates...not just letting gordon in...

racist!

 
bjabrad said:
Dr. Octopus said:
bulger2holt said:
Why does the NFL care about HGH testing? HGH makes their league more attractive. Bigger,stronger,faster = better
Click to expand...
Because when they are sued in the future by players that have brain tumors that claimed they took HGH in order to maintain their jobs in the NFL, the league can show the courts they had a testing program in place.
Click to expand...
Questions:

1. Is HGH identical to steroids regarding their harmful side effects?

2. Have steroids been proven to have these harmful side effects (brain tumors) or has it been vilified unjustly due to anecdotal rumors or perhaps even because of users that didn't take the drugs under medical supervision?

3. Aren't steroids and HGH legal drugs when prescribed by a physician and aren't they used everyday for various medical ailments?

4. Is the HGH and steroid crusade a politically driven agenda without scientific merit?
Click to expand...
I just made that up as an example of some ailment that a harmful substance may cause. I should have just said "players that have been adversely affected in some way that claimed they took HGH..." Sorry for any confusion.

 
It's going to suck if all kinds of players start getting suspended for HGH. What's the point of un-suspending them for pot and turn around and suspend them for HGH?

 
bulger2holt said:
It's going to suck if all kinds of players start getting suspended for HGH. What's the point of un-suspending them for pot and turn around and suspend them for HGH?
Click to expand...
I feel like HGH isn't as big of an issue in the NFL as people think it is. (This is just speculation)

I feel like its probably more of an issue at some positions than others.. (i.e MLB vs QB.) but still not a HUGE issue.

 
LawFitz said:
Again, I think the $$$ question here is... Does the NFL want Josh Gordon to play in 2014? I think they do.
Click to expand...
Were ratings down in Week 1 without him on the field? I'm not sure what is going to happen, but I doubt they care what happens with one player either way.

 
There are like 20 guys that will have their suspensions/bans lifted if this passes, it's not just Gordon & Welker, they are just the most prominent ones. So it's not like it's just "a few teams" being affected by this decision, it's the majority.

 
LawFitz said:
Bayhawks said:
Can you provide ANYTHING that would indicate that the NFL "WANTS" Gordon to play, other than your hunch?
Click to expand...
Not really.

But my reasoning is Josh Gordon = $$$ and the NFL likes $$$.

#FreeJoshGordon
Click to expand...
So why didn't they just ignore or lose the test? Why didn't they find some other way to let him play? Why try to go through this convoluted process of re-working the policy, which requires the NFLPA's consent, which will require the NFL to give up something (some of their power: to appeal, to suspend players, etc).

If they really wanted Gordon to play, there were easier ways to make that happen. Since they didn't take the easier routes, it stands to reason (if you don't ignore logic and facts) that they don't "WANT" him to play, he is just another player to them, who they expect to follow the rules.

 
What are folks seeing or what is anyone's thought as to what % of a FAAB yearly budget would you spend on Gordon if you have to make that decision right now?

 
Forget about the silly bickering in here, and the desperate desire for people to be right, and certain people to be proven wrong.

What a great, fantastic roller coaster of a story.

OF COURSE Welker and Scandrick get reinstated, but Gordon is more complicated. Wouldn't have it any other way.

Whole thing is hilarious.

 
Dr. Octopus said:
LawFitz said:
Again, I think the $$$ question here is... Does the NFL want Josh Gordon to play in 2014? I think they do.
Click to expand...
Were ratings down in Week 1 without him on the field? I'm not sure what is going to happen, but I doubt they care what happens with one player either way.
Click to expand...
Im sure they were in Cleveland...you have 2 star players and one is banned for the year?! Yep...not watching if I lived there.

 
The case-by-case basis seems like we're heading to reduced suspension territory. Case-by-case basis allows them to set individual conditions to reinstatement based on individual circumstances.

 
massraider said:
Forget about the silly bickering in here, and the desperate desire for people to be right, and certain people to be proven wrong.

What a great, fantastic roller coaster of a story.

OF COURSE Welker and Scandrick get reinstated, but Gordon is more complicated. Wouldn't have it any other way.

Whole thing is hilarious.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

I, for one, will have been entertained by both the Gordon situation and this thread regardless how it turns out.

 
shoecrew22 said:
Dr. Octopus said:
LawFitz said:
Again, I think the $$$ question here is... Does the NFL want Josh Gordon to play in 2014? I think they do.
Click to expand...
Were ratings down in Week 1 without him on the field? I'm not sure what is going to happen, but I doubt they care what happens with one player either way.
Click to expand...
Im sure they were in Cleveland...you have 2 star players and one is banned for the year?! Yep...not watching if I lived there.
Click to expand...
They haven't had a star player since Kosar* and the fans still watched. :shrug:

*Ok, I'll give you Edwards for a couple years.

 
cstu said:
shoecrew22 said:
Dr. Octopus said:
LawFitz said:
Again, I think the $$$ question here is... Does the NFL want Josh Gordon to play in 2014? I think they do.
Click to expand...
Were ratings down in Week 1 without him on the field? I'm not sure what is going to happen, but I doubt they care what happens with one player either way.
Click to expand...
Im sure they were in Cleveland...you have 2 star players and one is banned for the year?! Yep...not watching if I lived there.
Click to expand...
They haven't had a star player since Kosar* and the fans still watched. :shrug:

*Ok, I'll give you Edwards for a couple years.
Click to expand...
What about Pfc. Kellen Winslow Jr.?

 
massraider said:
Forget about the silly bickering in here, and the desperate desire for people to be right, and certain people to be proven wrong.

What a great, fantastic roller coaster of a story.

OF COURSE Welker and Scandrick get reinstated, but Gordon is more complicated. Wouldn't have it any other way.

Whole thing is hilarious.
Click to expand...
Mr. Gordon's Wild Ride.

 
Ok, I'm off the bandwagon in Dynasty. Traded him away today. Still hope he plays though because I snagged him off the wire in a redraft after the draft when an owner dumped him.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
iamkoza said:
Captain Quinoa said:
iamkoza said:
given rapsheets understanding of the league year cut off... wouldnt letting gordon off the hook open a huge can of worms... if i was suspended in league year 2013 i'd want my gamechecks back if gordon gets out of his suspension?
Click to expand...
not his fault the league waited 5 months to actually hand down his suspension.
Click to expand...
he failed the test in LY 2013, it doesnt matter when the suspension is handed down. how can they give one guy a break who failed a test in LY 2013 but then not have to pay out $$ to other LY 2013 players who missed time in 2013 season?
Click to expand...
how do you know it doesn't matter? cutoff has to be somewhere.

 
Wilbur Wood said:
What are folks seeing or what is anyone's thought as to what % of a FAAB yearly budget would you spend on Gordon if you have to make that decision right now?
Click to expand...
I won Gordon by bidding ~40% of my FAAB budget. By my scenario analysis, I feel like I got great deal. However, my degree of belief in Gordon playing this season likely differs greatly from some others who post here.

 
Deuce said:
There are like 20 guys that will have their suspensions/bans lifted if this passes, it's not just Gordon & Welker, they are just the most prominent ones. So it's not like it's just "a few teams" being affected by this decision, it's the majority.
Click to expand...
I know someone "reported" that 20 people would be affected by the revised policy, but I have a hard time believing that. So what they're saying is that there are 20 people who:

1. Tested positive for THC but is was such a slight positive that the revised limit now makes them under the limit (Gordon's case)

2. Took some type of methamphetamine that used to qualify as PED but since it will be moved to a recreational category, a first time offender will not receive games off (Welker's case)

Unless there are more changes than I know about (which is possible) I can't see 20 people falling into these categories. (especially Gordon's case)

 
Bayhawks said:
LawFitz said:
My high school had a policy that if any senior student was caught ditching during the last six weeks of school, he would be barred from walking at the year-end graduation ceremony. Every year, several seniors were banned by this rule, as it wasn't much of a deterrent for a lot of them from skipping senioritis laden year-end classes.

My senior year our class valedictorian, a known partier, was caught at the local McD's about 15 minutes before the start of the school's lunch hour by a school administrator. Word got out that he'd been caught and everyone wondered how the school would handle not having the valedictorian at the ceremony and cutting out his speech. Neither happened. He got to walk and gave his speech, because the school decided to change it's policy and set the valedictorian and all other ditchers from that year free, allowing them to attend their graduation. True story.

Rules are often bent and/or broken for valedictorians.

#FreeJoshGordon
Click to expand...
My first year at the high school I currently teach at, a senior who was top-10 in his class, had received a D-1 football scholarship & was the son of our football team's offensive coordinator (and PE teacher) was caught pulling a "senior prank" where he and a bunch of buddies put super glue on the outside locks of the school. This happened right before the end of the year, and the punishment for vandalism of school property was a 2 week suspension, which meant they couldn't walk at the graduation ceremony.

This kid and his friends were not allowed to walk in the ceremony.

Rules are often not bent and/or broken for people at the top of their class.

What does this have to do with Josh Gordon? Nothing, but neither did your anecdote.

BTW-Gordon is neither a valedictorian, nor a student who was at the top of his class.

#FreeJoshGordonbutforgodsakebelogicalandstopgoingtoanyextremepossibletojustifyfreeingJoshGordon
Click to expand...
damn dude, that's pretty lame. every senior class does a senior prank. it's tradition man. can you PM me your school's name so I don't accidentally send my future son/daughter there? thanks in advance.

 
mbrasi said:
Deuce said:
There are like 20 guys that will have their suspensions/bans lifted if this passes, it's not just Gordon & Welker, they are just the most prominent ones. So it's not like it's just "a few teams" being affected by this decision, it's the majority.
Click to expand...
I know someone "reported" that 20 people would be affected by the revised policy, but I have a hard time believing that. So what they're saying is that there are 20 people who:

1. Tested positive for THC but is was such a slight positive that the revised limit now makes them under the limit (Gordon's case)

2. Took some type of methamphetamine that used to qualify as PED but since it will be moved to a recreational category, a first time offender will not receive games off (Welker's case)

Unless there are more changes than I know about (which is possible) I can't see 20 people falling into these categories. (especially Gordon's case)
Click to expand...
Only other name I have seen is Scandrick. WHat about Mathis? I know he's hurt now but could get his money.

 
Waiting for Justin Blackmon's agent to pipe up if Gordon is reinstated.

:mellow: :o :lol: :P

 
Last edited by a moderator:
JaxBill said:
Waiting for Justin Blackmon's agent to pipe up if Gordon is reinstated.

:mellow: :o :lol: :P
Click to expand...
This has come up several times already in this thread. Suspended players would have to meet the threshold of whatever the new testing standards turn out to be. If players would have failed the new standard, they would remain suspended.

 
Captain Quinoa said:
mbrasi said:
Deuce said:
There are like 20 guys that will have their suspensions/bans lifted if this passes, it's not just Gordon & Welker, they are just the most prominent ones. So it's not like it's just "a few teams" being affected by this decision, it's the majority.
Click to expand...
I know someone "reported" that 20 people would be affected by the revised policy, but I have a hard time believing that. So what they're saying is that there are 20 people who:

1. Tested positive for THC but is was such a slight positive that the revised limit now makes them under the limit (Gordon's case)

2. Took some type of methamphetamine that used to qualify as PED but since it will be moved to a recreational category, a first time offender will not receive games off (Welker's case)

Unless there are more changes than I know about (which is possible) I can't see 20 people falling into these categories. (especially Gordon's case)
Click to expand...
Only other name I have seen is Scandrick. WHat about Mathis? I know he's hurt now but could get his money.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Ive read both of those names but not sure of their violations

 
Captain Quinoa said:
mbrasi said:
Deuce said:
There are like 20 guys that will have their suspensions/bans lifted if this passes, it's not just Gordon & Welker, they are just the most prominent ones. So it's not like it's just "a few teams" being affected by this decision, it's the majority.
Click to expand...
I know someone "reported" that 20 people would be affected by the revised policy, but I have a hard time believing that. So what they're saying is that there are 20 people who:

1. Tested positive for THC but is was such a slight positive that the revised limit now makes them under the limit (Gordon's case)

2. Took some type of methamphetamine that used to qualify as PED but since it will be moved to a recreational category, a first time offender will not receive games off (Welker's case)

Unless there are more changes than I know about (which is possible) I can't see 20 people falling into these categories. (especially Gordon's case)
Click to expand...
Only other name I have seen is Scandrick. WHat about Mathis? I know he's hurt now but could get his money.
Click to expand...
Finding a list of players suspended shouldn't be too hard, but I agree that 20 seems high.

That being said, the THC level could be raised to 35 or 50 (both have been reported), so it's not like only players who were slightly over will be affected.

Also, original reports were that some drugs would be moved from performance enhancing to substance abuse (Welker), so it would also involve some players suspended under the PED policy, as well.

 
Bayhawks said:
Captain Quinoa said:
mbrasi said:
Deuce said:
There are like 20 guys that will have their suspensions/bans lifted if this passes, it's not just Gordon & Welker, they are just the most prominent ones. So it's not like it's just "a few teams" being affected by this decision, it's the majority.
Click to expand...
I know someone "reported" that 20 people would be affected by the revised policy, but I have a hard time believing that. So what they're saying is that there are 20 people who:

1. Tested positive for THC but is was such a slight positive that the revised limit now makes them under the limit (Gordon's case)

2. Took some type of methamphetamine that used to qualify as PED but since it will be moved to a recreational category, a first time offender will not receive games off (Welker's case)

Unless there are more changes than I know about (which is possible) I can't see 20 people falling into these categories. (especially Gordon's case)
Click to expand...
Only other name I have seen is Scandrick. WHat about Mathis? I know he's hurt now but could get his money.
Click to expand...
Finding a list of players suspended shouldn't be too hard, but I agree that 20 seems high.

That being said, the THC level could be raised to 35 or 50 (both have been reported), so it's not like only players who were slightly over will be affected.

Also, original reports were that some drugs would be moved from performance enhancing to substance abuse (Welker), so it would also involve some players suspended under the PED policy, as well.
Click to expand...
Reshad Jones was mentioned as someone who might be amnestied. Relevant to IDPers, since he's a DB1/2.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2014-09-09/sports/sfl-new-nfl-drug-policy-being-voted-on-today-could-benefit-dolphins-20140909_1_dion-jordan-drug-policy-reshad-jones

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Apple Jack said:
Ditka Butkus said:
There are representatives from all 32 teams......If they can achieve the same thing without retro reinstatement why would all teams vote for reinstatement, if only a few would benefit...If I'm trying to win a championship why would I vote for something that doesn't benefit me but benefits my competitor?
Click to expand...
Hard as it obviously is for you to believe, there are probably many who view the NFLPA as the "team" in this context and would find it in bad taste to put their own short-term interests ahead of somebody else's employment status.
Click to expand...
At the end of the day the players number one goal is to put a ring on their finger and cash out as much as possible.....If they are smart that is how each teams players should be looking at this..."How does it benefit me/us as a team". I don't think they should be to concerned about 1.17% of the leagues players being reinstated.

 
some of you just need to back away from the computer

IF there is an agreement, the agreement will say what thye agreement says. If the NFLPA thinks suspending a guy for 16 games for testing at 16 and then 13.5 when the threshold is 15 and s/b 50, they will address that and the lawyers can define the date in such a way that it does whatr they want it to do. It's on the table and it's part of the negotiation. If you think they discussion 100% in the abstract, you are mistaken. Gordon, Welker, et al are bargaining chips.

 
Chaka said:
How are things going in here?
Click to expand...
Well about the same...I'm currently arguing the benefit/or lack of benefit of retro reinstatement. And some of my detractors/Gordon jock sniffers can't seem to acknowledge that not all teams/players benefit from retro reinstatement and in fact it may be to their detriment.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

greenmountaingoat
Ainias Smith-WR- Eagles
Replies
13
Views
740
Birdie048
Birdie048
T
Travdogg's positional rankings offseason edition
2
Replies
51
Views
1K
travdogg
T
JohnnyU
WR Trey Palmer, TB
Replies
39
Views
2K
ignatiusjreilly
ignatiusjreilly

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top