Your Guess - How Long Will CLE WR Josh Gordon Be Suspended For? (1 Viewer)

[False Start]

Almost 100 more votes then the 2nd highest answer. 199 votes with 126 for a year or longer. Makes me wonder why this was even a question in the first place. People way smarter than us have been suggesting that this is a year long ban. Anything else seems like pure hope but reasonable logic took control in this poll.

Knowing Gordons history and recent transgressions, bias has to be involved for anyone to not think a year or longer. Someone said the think there may be something we have not heard of yet? What? These things are supposed to be confidential yet it came out anyways. There is very little we dont already know.

 

[Soulfly3]

66% to 33%

How is this not worthy of a discussion?

Hell, even the site owner is calling 8 games

 

[Joe Bryant]

66% to 33%

How is this not worthy of a discussion?

Hell, even the site owner is calling 8 games

And the site owner clearly stated it's a PURE GUESS. My take on this carries the same weight as everyone elses.

J

 

[B-Deep]

Grossi says the browns expect a one year ban:

http://espncleveland.com/common/more.php?m=49&action=blog&r=17&post_id=33601

 

[Joe Bryant]

Almost 100 more votes then the 2nd highest answer. 199 votes with 126 for a year or longer. Makes me wonder why this was even a question in the first place. People way smarter than us have been suggesting that this is a year long ban. Anything else seems like pure hope but reasonable logic took control in this poll.

Knowing Gordons history and recent transgressions, bias has to be involved for anyone to not think a year or longer. Someone said the think there may be something we have not heard of yet? What? These things are supposed to be confidential yet it came out anyways. There is very little we dont already know.

I always question what groups of people are thinking.

And I'm always pretty leery of using the "people way smarter than us have suggested this so we better take what they say as gospel". This board pretty much exists because people have their own opinions.

And, there's always things we don't know...

J

 

[Joe Bryant]

Grossi says the browns expect a one year ban:

http://espncleveland.com/common/more.php?m=49&action=blog&r=17&post_id=33601

Thanks. That's pretty strong.

From Tony Grossi

1. The fate of Josh Gordon will be known any day. The Browns are expecting the worst – an indefinite suspension with a chance to apply for reinstatement after one year. The coaches look at Gordon performing at OTAs, marvel at his smoothness and phenomenal athleticism, and consider him a player simply unavailable in 2014 – same as one with a torn ACL or other season-ending injury. Despite the prevailing fan sentiment to cut ties with Gordon, the Browns have no inclination to do anything rash. There is no need to. Gordon is owed no future cash bonus per terms of his contract. His 2014 base salary of $825,604 ranks 25th on the club (kicker Billy Cundiff, for example, is 21st at $955,000). If Gordon is suspended a minimum of one year, his contract tolls, which means the two years he has remaining will simply pick up whenever he is made active. If Gordon’s suspension is reduced on appeal, it would begin with the first week of regular season and he would be able to participate in training camp and play in preseason games. If it is an indefinite suspension, it would kick in immediately and he would not be able to be around the team for a minimum of one year.

 

[Soulfly3]

Almost 100 more votes then the 2nd highest answer. 199 votes with 126 for a year or longer. Makes me wonder why this was even a question in the first place. People way smarter than us have been suggesting that this is a year long ban. Anything else seems like pure hope but reasonable logic took control in this poll.

Knowing Gordons history and recent transgressions, bias has to be involved for anyone to not think a year or longer. Someone said the think there may be something we have not heard of yet? What? These things are supposed to be confidential yet it came out anyways. There is very little we dont already know.

I always question what groups of people are thinking.

And I'm always pretty leery of using the "people way smarter than us have suggested this so we better take what they say as gospel". This board pretty much exists because people have their own opinions.

J

That's just so... beautiful, Joe.

Thanks.

 

[B-Deep]

just stay away from the weed dude, it is not that hard

 

[Soulfly3]

Grossi says the browns expect a one year ban:

http://espncleveland.com/common/more.php?m=49&action=blog&r=17&post_id=33601

I don't think the Browns "expecting the worst" is news... I think we all knew they'd be expecting the worst.

The rest of the article is much softer in tone, "IF he is suspended..." "if it is reduced...."

Just rehashing of the same stuff we already know.

But in fairness, I give Grossi MUCH more credence than Mary Kay.

 

[B-Deep]

Grossi says the browns expect a one year ban:

http://espncleveland.com/common/more.php?m=49&action=blog&r=17&post_id=33601

I don't think the Browns "expecting the worst" is news... I think we all knew they'd be expecting the worst.

The rest of the article is much softer in tone, "IF he is suspended..." "if it is reduced...."

Just rehashing of the same stuff we already know.

But in fairness, I give Grossi MUCH more credence than Mary Kay.

i am certain you were using the browns not drafting a WR as evidence that they knew he was not facing a year long suspension. there was no panic in the front office or with the players because they knew this year long suspension thing was misinformation

 

[RBM]

I'm going with 6-8 games. I think there has to be some kind of mitigating circumstance, or something that we don't know that will factor in to a lesser suspension.

Yup. If it was going to be the full year it would be done by now.

 

[Soulfly3]

i am certain you were using the browns not drafting a WR as evidence that they knew he was not facing a year long suspension. there was no panic in the front office or with the players because they knew this year long suspension thing was misinformation

that's part of it, sure.

 

[B-Deep]

i am certain you were using the browns not drafting a WR as evidence that they knew he was not facing a year long suspension. there was no panic in the front office or with the players because they knew this year long suspension thing was misinformation

that's part of it, sure.

how do you reconcile saying that the browns expecting the worst is not news with saying they drafted knowing the worst would not be coming, seems like those are mutually exclusive

either they KNOW he is not facing a year

or they are EXPECTING him to be gone a year, i cannot see how it is both

 

[Kevrunner]

Until the recent speeding/weed transporting incident that Gordon was involved, I would have went with 6 to 8 games, but I voted a full season only because of the recent stuff.

 

[grateful zed]

just stay away from the weed dude, it is not that hard

yes it is.

 

[westparkhouserat]

I think Josh deserves some credit being the designated driver last weekend.

 

[Soulfly3]

i am certain you were using the browns not drafting a WR as evidence that they knew he was not facing a year long suspension. there was no panic in the front office or with the players because they knew this year long suspension thing was misinformation

that's part of it, sure.

how do you reconcile saying that the browns expecting the worst is not news with saying they drafted knowing the worst would not be coming, seems like those are mutually exclusive

either they KNOW he is not facing a year

or they are EXPECTING him to be gone a year, i cannot see how it is both

I dont think they KNOW he isnt facing a year, but they could KNOW he potentially wont be.

Either way, you dont alter your entire draft plan for a WR that could be back this season, or at the latest, next

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Why hasn't Joe Bryant let us know what HE thinks happens?

Cmon, Joe!!!!

My TOTAL GUESS is 8 games. Something about this taking so long makes me think there's something going on that will be a surprise. Couple that with the Brown's seemingly super casual attitude for replacing him. (of course that could just be ineptness...)

I have zero backup for this guess though. It's just pure speculation on my part.

J

I don't see how the bolded could really be all that relevant into the analysis, in that even if they expected "only" an 8 game suspension - do they really want to "punt" on half the season in the NFL where every game matters for playoff positioning?

Even if we wanted to look at it from a longer term perspective - i.e. they didn't draft anyone because they fully expect Gordon back before the end of the season and into the future. Wouldn't that be a fairly shortsighted position to take given his impending free agency and the very serious risk of future suspensions?

I don't want to insult the Browns' by calling it ineptness - but I do think it may just boil down to:

1. They didn't know anything about the potential suspension during the initial wave of free agency;

2. They stuck to their draft board and took BPA, bypassing WRs;

and

3. By the time they had a clue, they did go out and sign a few veterans in what was now a weak FA market like Austin and Burleson.

 

[Bronx Bomber]

just stay away from the weed dude, it is not that hard

yes it is.

It's relative. If the motivation to keep the job is higher than the motivation to smoke than it's easy. If the motivation to smoke is higher than the motivation to keep the job its hard. Millions of people quit or lay off their drugs of choice for their jobs (the ones that have mandatory drug tests) and most of those are boring, low paying jobs. You'd think someone wouldn't want to risk millions for some pain relief or fun. Take some fish oil, curcumin, holy basil, etc. if you have to fight the pain and inflammation. Have a beer if you want to have fun, until(if) the time comes that weed is tolerated in the NFL.

 

[Ghost Rider]

We all know where I stand.

We do? Did I miss a PSA where you proclaimed it to the world?

 

[Soulfly3]

We all know where I stand.

We do? Did I miss a PSA where you proclaimed it to the world?

Did you miss my Ad in the New York Post?

 

[Mene]

I like the kid, and feel that the NFL marijuana policy is laughable, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we don't see him again in the NFL. With an appeal going on a potential year long suspension, he gets nailed speeding, on a holiday weekend (gotta know that police presence is heightened during warm weather holidays), with a friend in the car that has weed on him. Gordon's decision making is downright awful, now you expect his decision making to improve while he is away from the team structure, while serving a suspension? My money would be on another mistake while suspended, leaving Goodell with no choice.

I honestly would not be shocked at all if he follows the path of one Charles Rogers, as much a shame as that would be. Gifted, but no common sense.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

I voted 8 games....Will Hill got 6 for 3 offenses.......based on that I give Gordon 6 with a bump of 2 for being a dumb ### and getting pulled over with weed in his car while trying to appeal his suspension..... Also I think Goodell would lean towards giving him the superstar treatment.

 

[Yenrub]

How does Gordon's violations compare to Will Hill of the Giants? Hill was just suspended for 6 games for what I believe his 3rd failed drug test

 

[Bronx Bomber]

How does Gordon's violations compare to Will Hill of the Giants? Hill was just suspended for 6 games for what I believe his 3rd failed drug test

That would put him into stage 3 IIRC. I believe it takes two strikes once you are in stage 2 to get into stage 3. Much of the confusion with Gordon is what stage he was previously in.

 

[B-Deep]

just stay away from the weed dude, it is not that hard

yes it is.

really, it is not

there are tons of people who give it up when they get a real job that requires testing.

If it IS that hard to give it up that would be a damn good argument for the NFL not allowing it.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

His 2014 base salary of $825,604

How much would it be if he were a top-5 pick going into his 3rd year? You know, if he had managed to stay eligible at either Baylor or Utah and gotten drafted where his talent belongs?

 

[B-Deep]

i am certain you were using the browns not drafting a WR as evidence that they knew he was not facing a year long suspension. there was no panic in the front office or with the players because they knew this year long suspension thing was misinformation

that's part of it, sure.

how do you reconcile saying that the browns expecting the worst is not news with saying they drafted knowing the worst would not be coming, seems like those are mutually exclusive

either they KNOW he is not facing a year

or they are EXPECTING him to be gone a year, i cannot see how it is both

I dont think they KNOW he isnt facing a year, but they could KNOW he potentially wont be.

Either way, you dont alter your entire draft plan for a WR that could be back this season, or at the latest, next

your argument before was the media was wrong and the browns knew it

now your spin is "of course they are expecting a season long suspension"

thos are arguments that counter each other. Your homerness causes you to argue whatever position makes the browns look best and makes them most likely to be a contender this season. a little bit of homerness is fun, yours is to the extent that any analysis you give that involves the browns is completely suspect because you are blinded

 

[B-Deep]

I like the kid, and feel that the NFL marijuana policy is laughable, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we don't see him again in the NFL. With an appeal going on a potential year long suspension, he gets nailed speeding, on a holiday weekend (gotta know that police presence is heightened during warm weather holidays), with a friend in the car that has weed on him. Gordon's decision making is downright awful, now you expect his decision making to improve while he is away from the team structure, while serving a suspension? My money would be on another mistake while suspended, leaving Goodell with no choice.

I honestly would not be shocked at all if he follows the path of one Charles Rogers, as much a shame as that would be. Gifted, but no common sense.

chris carter nailed it

weed is more important than football to him

 

[Joe Bryant]

Why hasn't Joe Bryant let us know what HE thinks happens?

Cmon, Joe!!!!

My TOTAL GUESS is 8 games. Something about this taking so long makes me think there's something going on that will be a surprise. Couple that with the Brown's seemingly super casual attitude for replacing him. (of course that could just be ineptness...)

I have zero backup for this guess though. It's just pure speculation on my part.

J

I don't see how the bolded could really be all that relevant into the analysis, in that even if they expected "only" an 8 game suspension - do they really want to "punt" on half the season in the NFL where every game matters for playoff positioning?

Even if we wanted to look at it from a longer term perspective - i.e. they didn't draft anyone because they fully expect Gordon back before the end of the season and into the future. Wouldn't that be a fairly shortsighted position to take given his impending free agency and the very serious risk of future suspensions?

I don't want to insult the Browns' by calling it ineptness - but I do think it may just boil down to:

1. They didn't know anything about the potential suspension during the initial wave of free agency;

2. They stuck to their draft board and took BPA, bypassing WRs;

and

3. By the time they had a clue, they did go out and sign a few veterans in what was now a weak FA market like Austin and Burleson.

Hi Doc,

For me, sure it's relevant. If we're guessing here (and I am), I'm going to definitely look at how the team is acting and what they're doing. As I said, they didn't seem too worried and that says something. But as I also said, maybe it's ineptness...

Am I basing my guess completely off this? Of course not. Does it factor? Sure it does.

J

 

[Bronco Billy]

I see recent signings of Austin, Bennett, and Armstrong as signs of concern. Not sure why others don't.

The most recent news also has Gordon in Stage 3 prior to his latest positive test. That would mean a mandatory one year minimum suspension.

 

[Soulfly3]

I see recent signings of Austin, Bennett, and Armstrong as signs of concern. Not sure why others don't.

The most recent news also has Gordon in Stage 3 prior to his latest positive test. That would mean a mandatory one year minimum suspension.

a) they're vets and "scrubs" signed on minimal contracts - only austin given an "ok deal"

b) the most recent news you're referring to is from a 1yr old report from Mary Kay Cabot, that's being recirculated

 

[stbugs]

Why hasn't Joe Bryant let us know what HE thinks happens?

Cmon, Joe!!!!

My TOTAL GUESS is 8 games. Something about this taking so long makes me think there's something going on that will be a surprise. Couple that with the Brown's seemingly super casual attitude for replacing him. (of course that could just be ineptness...)

I have zero backup for this guess though. It's just pure speculation on my part.

J

I don't see how the bolded could really be all that relevant into the analysis, in that even if they expected "only" an 8 game suspension - do they really want to "punt" on half the season in the NFL where every game matters for playoff positioning?

Even if we wanted to look at it from a longer term perspective - i.e. they didn't draft anyone because they fully expect Gordon back before the end of the season and into the future. Wouldn't that be a fairly shortsighted position to take given his impending free agency and the very serious risk of future suspensions?

I don't want to insult the Browns' by calling it ineptness - but I do think it may just boil down to:

1. They didn't know anything about the potential suspension during the initial wave of free agency;

2. They stuck to their draft board and took BPA, bypassing WRs;

and

3. By the time they had a clue, they did go out and sign a few veterans in what was now a weak FA market like Austin and Burleson.

Hi Doc,

For me, sure it's relevant. If we're guessing here (and I am), I'm going to definitely look at how the team is acting and what they're doing. As I said, they didn't seem too worried and that says something. But as I also said, maybe it's ineptness...

Am I basing my guess completely off this? Of course not. Does it factor? Sure it does.

J

I agree with Dr. O as well. I am a Carolina fan and look at what we did in the draft. We took Benjamin and no OTs. We passed over a ton of OTs/WRs and selected a RB in the 6th. I am not necessarily saying that we did the right thing, but hanging on the Browns not drafting a WR as thinking Gordon is going to get off easy is not the right way to think. They grabbed some FAs after the draft and maybe they wanted who they drafted more than the WRs available. Again, one could say the Panthers needed OTs/WRs collectively more than the Browns need a WR and yet all the took was 1 WR.

Anyway, I have no idea on the suspension as I don't know all the facts. I also don't think the Browns are championship contenders, so maybe they would rather shore up their D, OL and QB this year and hope Gordon comes back next year or pick up a top WR next year.

 

[stbugs]

I see recent signings of Austin, Bennett, and Armstrong as signs of concern. Not sure why others don't.

The most recent news also has Gordon in Stage 3 prior to his latest positive test. That would mean a mandatory one year minimum suspension.

a) they're vets and "scrubs" signed on minimal contracts - only austin given an "ok deal"

b) the most recent news you're referring to is from a 1yr old report from Mary Kay Cabot, that's being recirculated

Look at who Carolina got and their WR situation was worse than Cleveland's after cutting Smith. We picked up Avant and Cotchery and drafted Benjamin. Carolina was the #2 seed in the NFC last year, so a heck of a lot more of a contender than the Browns. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I wouldn't look at Cleveland's moves and see that as an indication on Gordon's suspension length. Plenty of OTs on the draft board and Carolina virtually ignored them. Does that mean they weren't concerned about losing both of the OTs this offseason or that they had a different plan than the draft?

 

[Cold Dead Hands]

That would be a risky precedent for the league. If he wins and Im a player in the first part if stage two and I've been smoking then Id just skip my next test and appeal when they put me on stage three.

On on a side note. Wasn't the NBA players previous style embedded in the culture? Yet Stern enforced the suit and tie look and now look at the league and the compliance and it seems most players are into the style now and embracing it.

Clothes aren't an addictive substance (to most people).

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I see recent signings of Austin, Bennett, and Armstrong as signs of concern. Not sure why others don't.

The most recent news also has Gordon in Stage 3 prior to his latest positive test. That would mean a mandatory one year minimum suspension.

a) they're vets and "scrubs" signed on minimal contracts - only austin given an "ok deal"

b) the most recent news you're referring to is from a 1yr old report from Mary Kay Cabot, that's being recirculated

they were all that was left on the market though. outside of Holmes (who no team has wanted to touch).

 

[Bronco Billy]

I see recent signings of Austin, Bennett, and Armstrong as signs of concern. Not sure why others don't.

The most recent news also has Gordon in Stage 3 prior to his latest positive test. That would mean a mandatory one year minimum suspension.

a) they're vets and "scrubs" signed on minimal contracts - only austin given an "ok deal"

b) the most recent news you're referring to is from a 1yr old report from Mary Kay Cabot, that's being recirculated

they were all that was left on the market though. outside of Holmes (who no team has wanted to touch).

Like I said, I'm not sure how this is just dismissed out of hand - especially given the time frame. These go well beyond camp bodies.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I see recent signings of Austin, Bennett, and Armstrong as signs of concern. Not sure why others don't.

The most recent news also has Gordon in Stage 3 prior to his latest positive test. That would mean a mandatory one year minimum suspension.

a) they're vets and "scrubs" signed on minimal contracts - only austin given an "ok deal"

b) the most recent news you're referring to is from a 1yr old report from Mary Kay Cabot, that's being recirculated

Look at who Carolina got and their WR situation was worse than Cleveland's after cutting Smith. We picked up Avant and Cotchery and drafted Benjamin. Carolina was the #2 seed in the NFC last year, so a heck of a lot more of a contender than the Browns. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I wouldn't look at Cleveland's moves and see that as an indication on Gordon's suspension length. Plenty of OTs on the draft board and Carolina virtually ignored them. Does that mean they weren't concerned about losing both of the OTs this offseason or that they had a different plan than the draft?

But that's exactly what I'm saying. Carolina felt like they had a huge need at WR. Short of trading up higher into the first round, I'm not sure how they could have highlighted their need for WR any more than spending their first pick on Benjamin.

And for sure, none of how Carolina or Cleveland drafted may mean anything. But when we're blindly guessing, it's fun to play detective and talk about...

J

 

[Adam Harstad]

Almost 100 more votes then the 2nd highest answer. 199 votes with 126 for a year or longer. Makes me wonder why this was even a question in the first place. People way smarter than us have been suggesting that this is a year long ban. Anything else seems like pure hope but reasonable logic took control in this poll.

Knowing Gordons history and recent transgressions, bias has to be involved for anyone to not think a year or longer. Someone said the think there may be something we have not heard of yet? What? These things are supposed to be confidential yet it came out anyways. There is very little we dont already know.

I always question what groups of people are thinking.

And I'm always pretty leery of using the "people way smarter than us have suggested this so we better take what they say as gospel". This board pretty much exists because people have their own opinions.

And, there's always things we don't know...

J

I would go even further and say that by far the best opportunities for a profit, from a fantasy standpoint, come when "everyone agrees" about something and they wind up being wrong. When there is a lot of disagreement over the future, many contrasting ideas compete in the marketplace and player pricing tends to be pretty efficient. When there are no competing theories being offered, there is nothing forcing accountability in player valuations, and they have a much easier time getting out of whack.

In this case, I happen to think the majority opinion will ultimately prove correct. In other instances, such as valuations of players who suffer multiple injuries, I think the "conventional wisdom" has gone unchallenged for too long and now represents a systemic error. Even though I'm on the side of the majority on this one, I'm grateful for the presence of a vocal minority pushing back against my beliefs and preventing them from becoming entrenched and automatic.

To use a personal example... last year, "everyone agreed" that Knowshon Moreno was an afterthought in Denver's offense. And I thought everyone was right on the money. I could list all the reasons Denver's front office had given suggesting they simply didn't like Moreno very much (and the fact that they let him walk without even attempting to re-sign him, despite his relatively small cost, reinforces the belief). Still, a small but vocal minority pushed back hard against that conventional wisdom. I didn't agree with them, but the fact that they were there and pushing caused me to re-evaluate the possibility that, in fact, I was wrong- along with "everyone" who agreed with me. And because of that, I decided that I was possibly undervaluing Moreno, and started taking flyers on him in several of my leagues. Not because I thought he was good, but because I was open to the possibility that I was wrong.

In our staff dynasty league, I drafted Moreno in the 17th round, and immediately emailed the league comparing the pick to having to wear roll-up sunglasses to middle school, or getting poison ivy on my eyelids. The player comment I left on MFL was "I'm strongly convinced this is a wasted pick, but I've been wrong before. It was back in 2007. I almost lost a league because of it. A 17th is a small price to pay to hedge against the infinitesimal chance it happens again. And who knows, maybe some team is willing to sign him next season after Denver lets him walk in free agency. Probably the Raiders- that sounds like something stupid enough for them to consider." I didn't draft Moreno because I thought he was good, I drafted him because I was open to the possibility that I was wrong. And it's a good thing, too, because I was wrong.

If I'd participated in a draft three weeks ago, when my assumptions about Gordon were going unchallenged, he wouldn't even be on my board. After all, "everyone knew" that he was going to get a full year off, right? If it were a dynasty draft, there would be a virtual 0% chance I landed him. All the recent discussion and dissent, however, has opened my eyes to the possibility that I'm wrong, and has forced me to re-evaluate what kind of unchallenged risk discounts I've been applying. I've started looking at him as a late-round flyer in redraft. I've started sending out feelers to the Gordon owners in my dynasty owners to see if they're ready to under-sell him in disgust yet.

I think that this disagreement is an unambiguously good thing. It makes me a better fantasy owner. It leaves me with more accurate player valuations. While I may not always agree with the manner in which Soulfly presents his case, I'm glad that he's chosen to present it, and that he's been so dogged despite heavy opposition because "everyone agrees" he's wrong. The quality of my opinions tends to be directly proportional to the quality of the opinions of those who disagree with me.

 

[Soulfly3]

Cheers, Harstad

 

[Joe Bryant]

Almost 100 more votes then the 2nd highest answer. 199 votes with 126 for a year or longer. Makes me wonder why this was even a question in the first place. People way smarter than us have been suggesting that this is a year long ban. Anything else seems like pure hope but reasonable logic took control in this poll.

Knowing Gordons history and recent transgressions, bias has to be involved for anyone to not think a year or longer. Someone said the think there may be something we have not heard of yet? What? These things are supposed to be confidential yet it came out anyways. There is very little we dont already know.

I always question what groups of people are thinking.

And I'm always pretty leery of using the "people way smarter than us have suggested this so we better take what they say as gospel". This board pretty much exists because people have their own opinions.

And, there's always things we don't know...

J

I would go even further and say that by far the best opportunities for a profit, from a fantasy standpoint, come when "everyone agrees" about something and they wind up being wrong. When there is a lot of disagreement over the future, many contrasting ideas compete in the marketplace and player pricing tends to be pretty efficient. When there are no competing theories being offered, there is nothing forcing accountability in player valuations, and they have a much easier time getting out of whack.

In this case, I happen to think the majority opinion will ultimately prove correct. In other instances, such as valuations of players who suffer multiple injuries, I think the "conventional wisdom" has gone unchallenged for too long and now represents a systemic error. Even though I'm on the side of the majority on this one, I'm grateful for the presence of a vocal minority pushing back against my beliefs and preventing them from becoming entrenched and automatic.

To use a personal example... last year, "everyone agreed" that Knowshon Moreno was an afterthought in Denver's offense. And I thought everyone was right on the money. I could list all the reasons Denver's front office had given suggesting they simply didn't like Moreno very much (and the fact that they let him walk without even attempting to re-sign him, despite his relatively small cost, reinforces the belief). Still, a small but vocal minority pushed back hard against that conventional wisdom. I didn't agree with them, but the fact that they were there and pushing caused me to re-evaluate the possibility that, in fact, I was wrong- along with "everyone" who agreed with me. And because of that, I decided that I was possibly undervaluing Moreno, and started taking flyers on him in several of my leagues. Not because I thought he was good, but because I was open to the possibility that I was wrong.

In our staff dynasty league, I drafted Moreno in the 17th round, and immediately emailed the league comparing the pick to having to wear roll-up sunglasses to middle school, or getting poison ivy on my eyelids. The player comment I left on MFL was "I'm strongly convinced this is a wasted pick, but I've been wrong before. It was back in 2007. I almost lost a league because of it. A 17th is a small price to pay to hedge against the infinitesimal chance it happens again. And who knows, maybe some team is willing to sign him next season after Denver lets him walk in free agency. Probably the Raiders- that sounds like something stupid enough for them to consider." I didn't draft Moreno because I thought he was good, I drafted him because I was open to the possibility that I was wrong. And it's a good thing, too, because I was wrong.

If I'd participated in a draft three weeks ago, when my assumptions about Gordon were going unchallenged, he wouldn't even be on my board. After all, "everyone knew" that he was going to get a full year off, right? If it were a dynasty draft, there would be a virtual 0% chance I landed him. All the recent discussion and dissent, however, has opened my eyes to the possibility that I'm wrong, and has forced me to re-evaluate what kind of unchallenged risk discounts I've been applying. I've started looking at him as a late-round flyer in redraft. I've started sending out feelers to the Gordon owners in my dynasty owners to see if they're ready to under-sell him in disgust yet.

I think that this disagreement is an unambiguously good thing. It makes me a better fantasy owner. It leaves me with more accurate player valuations. While I may not always agree with the manner in which Soulfly presents his case, I'm glad that he's chosen to present it, and that he's been so dogged despite heavy opposition because "everyone agrees" he's wrong. The quality of my opinions tends to be directly proportional to the quality of the opinions of those who disagree with me.

Tons of value in going against the grain.

When you're right...

J

 

[Bronx Bomber]

Hence the comment "I think there has to be some kind of mitigating circumstance, or something that we don't know that will factor in to a lesser suspension"

***

From what I'm hearing around the league, part of the issue is one of the Stage 2 dings was a Failure To Comply with the stated policy. The hold up appears to be an appeal of the the process under which something can be considered a failure to comply ( hence part of the "new policy" is trying to close the current loophole that Drew Rosenhaus is trying to use now, which is essentially to advise your blue chip player to leave the country and claim vacation and try to technically airhole the petition process under which one can delay a test and what is the appropriate window for such. )

From what I'm hearing, if Rosenhaus is able to win the appeal, Gordon's most recent positive test will push him into Stage 3 (i.e. his second Stage 2 offense), not push him into a violation of Stage 3.

The issue apparently isn't all marijuana related either, so pro legalization folks might want to holster their guns for a while. Some of Gordon's dings apparently have come from "Purple Drank", which is basically soda, candy and prescription based cough medicine mixed together. It its highly addictive but it is seen league wide as a bigger concern for linemen compared to skill players ( the promathazine component can be deadly for the gaggle of heavy players already with sleep apnea or other respiratory issues. Someone like GeneDoc or Jene Bramel would have a better basis to talk about the complications of Purple Drank within the NFL's substance abuse policy as the prescription issue starts to bleed into the NFL encroaching into areas nominally held by government regulatory agencies)

Gordon's roots are Houston, which is the Purple Drank capital of the US. It is a major problem with a lot of players and it is a major problem for the mind boggling number of NFL players currently in Stage 1. Which is part of the reason why changes in the policy are being discussed now. It's not just weed, it's the combination of weed and Purple Drank that could cripple the league with mass suspensions.

The word out is Gordon's split samples were tested by an independent lab that Rosenhaus selected and it still came up positive, which will shut down that avenue as a form of appeal.

From the political side of the league, the issue with Irsay caught with enough drugs to stockpile a small pharmacy and Ray Rice beating his wife on camera are not considered "push issues" One of the complications for the NFL with alcohol and it's substance abuse policy is that beer and the NFL go hand in hand, directly into corporate sponsorship and advertising and into the entire football culture (i.e. watching games at sports bars, the massive revenue that football brings to the alcohol industry) Irsay getting a relative pass is not so much about his position as a league owner as much as, like Aldon Smith, there are complex financial interests deeply embedded with the issue. The desire to change the league policy isn't just about marijuana ( though some pro legalization lobbyists are trying hard to media spin it that way) but to

1) Create a different policy to deal with more levels of treatment for alcohol abuse. The NFL does not want it's alcohol base cash cow to get a black eye in the public with it's players getting drunk and driving and getting into scandals.

2) To reduce the staggering number of players currently in Stage 1 by way of changing the policy. Without a change to the policy, the NFL risks a PR firestorm and an epidemic of the possibility of players getting clipped every other week in the off season.

The occasional player misconduct issue and Goodell laying down the hammer makes him the Sheriff. The issue is public perception, protecting the image of the "shield" and general deterrence. The groundswell of players in Stage 1 risks turning Goodell from the Sheriff into a guying basically running a morgue. The image of enforcing player conduct doesn't hold up when the hammer breaks from being swung so often.

It's not just weed, but Purple Drank is embedded into the music, entertainment and social culture for a lot of these players, and their status, wealth and fame give them a lot of direct access to situations that are "likely to go bad" This is not something Goodell, the owners, the players union and NFL Security can really control.

In a sad way, the junkies won. This is tantamount to the repeal of the Volstead Act, the will of the masses ( in this case, the behavior of so many players) simply made the current substance abuse policy untenable.

Rosenhaus breaches the loophole in the current policy, with owners not looking to tempt the players union into a protracted labor issue over a policy it created itself, you are looking at a season long stated ban turned to 8 games on appeal.

Rosenhaus gets called to the carpet for, sort of hilariously, getting Gordon to run a deep post pattern right out of the US to miss a test, then you are looking at a full season slate without Gordon.

Considering the labor aspect of this, I'd wager on the former.

That would be a risky precedent for the league. If he wins and Im a player in the first part if stage two and I've been smoking then Id just skip my next test and appeal when they put me on stage three.

On on a side note. Wasn't the NBA players previous style embedded in the culture? Yet Stern enforced the suit and tie look and now look at the league and the compliance and it seems most players are into the style now and embracing it.

Clothes aren't an addictive substance (to most people).

I was referring to the above article or post or whatever it was speculating the league changing its policy just because an overwhelming amount of its players might get suspended due to it being embedded in the culture.

 

[cstu]

I didn't draft Moreno because I thought he was good, I drafted him because I was open to the possibility that I was wrong. And it's a good thing, too, because I was wrong.

Admitting you could be wrong is a very good skill to have. For me it was Michael Floyd, who prior to the draft I was extremely down on - I thought he was going to become what Blackmon became. However after his rookie season in which he was mostly unimpressive except for a big week 17 I thought "Maybe I'm wrong" and took him in the 8th round of a dynasty start up.

I see recent signings of Austin, Bennett, and Armstrong as signs of concern. Not sure why others don't.

The most recent news also has Gordon in Stage 3 prior to his latest positive test. That would mean a mandatory one year minimum suspension.

a) they're vets and "scrubs" signed on minimal contracts - only austin given an "ok deal"

b) the most recent news you're referring to is from a 1yr old report from Mary Kay Cabot, that's being recirculated

Straight from the horse's mouth.

 

[LususV]

I wouldn't be shocked by a full season or 6 or 8 games, but the way the Browns are acting (he's active in OTAs, on first team in practices, etc.) makes this situation seem a lot different than Daryl Washington, Will Hill, Justin Blackmon, etc., where the teams publicly condemned the player's actions as harmful to the team. Coupled with Greg Little's ambiguous comments, I think there's more to this than 'he failed his drug test again'.

 

[daveR]

I think GordonGekko nailed it. Not a weed problem. "Missed" a test by being elsewhere. League has to formulate a position here.

Doesn't look good for those of us hoping for something lenient.

 

[False Start]

Almost 100 more votes then the 2nd highest answer. 199 votes with 126 for a year or longer. Makes me wonder why this was even a question in the first place. People way smarter than us have been suggesting that this is a year long ban. Anything else seems like pure hope but reasonable logic took control in this poll.

Knowing Gordons history and recent transgressions, bias has to be involved for anyone to not think a year or longer. Someone said the think there may be something we have not heard of yet? What? These things are supposed to be confidential yet it came out anyways. There is very little we dont already know.

I always question what groups of people are thinking.

And I'm always pretty leery of using the "people way smarter than us have suggested this so we better take what they say as gospel". This board pretty much exists because people have their own opinions.

And, there's always things we don't know...

J

That is the only thing that worries anyone. But we cant consider what we dont know. The question is how long will he be suspended? If people are taking things they dont know into account over what has been made public so be it, but that doesnt seem like a smart play when making a guess to consider things you dont know.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Almost 100 more votes then the 2nd highest answer. 199 votes with 126 for a year or longer. Makes me wonder why this was even a question in the first place. People way smarter than us have been suggesting that this is a year long ban. Anything else seems like pure hope but reasonable logic took control in this poll.

Knowing Gordons history and recent transgressions, bias has to be involved for anyone to not think a year or longer. Someone said the think there may be something we have not heard of yet? What? These things are supposed to be confidential yet it came out anyways. There is very little we dont already know.

I always question what groups of people are thinking.

And I'm always pretty leery of using the "people way smarter than us have suggested this so we better take what they say as gospel". This board pretty much exists because people have their own opinions.

And, there's always things we don't know...

J

That is the only thing that worries anyone. But we cant consider what we dont know. The question is how long will he be suspended? If people are taking things they dont know into account over what has been made public so be it, but that doesnt seem like a smart play when making a guess to consider things you dont know.

That's cool - we can just disagree there. You said there's very little we don't know. I think there is very often a lot we don't know. But really, who knows?...

J

 

[Sabertooth]

I think a lot of it is going to come down to how many more times he gets into trouble before Goodell gets to the G's in his file cabinet.

 

[False Start]

Almost 100 more votes then the 2nd highest answer. 199 votes with 126 for a year or longer. Makes me wonder why this was even a question in the first place. People way smarter than us have been suggesting that this is a year long ban. Anything else seems like pure hope but reasonable logic took control in this poll.

Knowing Gordons history and recent transgressions, bias has to be involved for anyone to not think a year or longer. Someone said the think there may be something we have not heard of yet? What? These things are supposed to be confidential yet it came out anyways. There is very little we dont already know.

I always question what groups of people are thinking.

And I'm always pretty leery of using the "people way smarter than us have suggested this so we better take what they say as gospel". This board pretty much exists because people have their own opinions.

And, there's always things we don't know...

J

That is the only thing that worries anyone. But we cant consider what we dont know. The question is how long will he be suspended? If people are taking things they dont know into account over what has been made public so be it, but that doesnt seem like a smart play when making a guess to consider things you dont know.

That's cool - we can just disagree there. You said there's very little we don't know. I think there is very often a lot we don't know. But really, who knows?...

J

Gordon and Goodell already know and so do the Browns. It does seem as if the majority are correct and Gordon is gone for a year that the Browns made an epic fail not replacing him in the draft when it was made public on draft day that he was facing the suspension. Since it is in an appeal I guess the Browns would have to know what he faces or am I wrong? During an appeal if special considerations are allowed to reduce the suspension I would assume special considerations would allow his latest mishap to be considered. Deducting this down to a simple just too much going against him in what was already rumored to be a year long ban. If what was rumored was a 8 game ban at first, I would be less likely to think it would be a year suspension. But I can only base it off the countless reports which suggest a year from people in the loop of information.

The Browns have Burleson, Hawkins and Austin as their top WRs. The Panthers have a better group than that and they are starting a rookie and Cotchery.

 

[Adam Harstad]

That is the only thing that worries anyone. But we cant consider what we dont know. The question is how long will he be suspended? If people are taking things they dont know into account over what has been made public so be it, but that doesnt seem like a smart play when making a guess to consider things you dont know.

As we know, there are known knowns; there are things that we know that we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know.