Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 22.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Can someone reach out to Soulfly? I’m more worried about him than I Gordon.

Kind of ironic isn't it? NFL tells Gordon to lay off the weed and he can't. Owner of this website tells you to lay off your hot takes and you can't.

You've never seen my wife reach for the last pizza slice.

Scott Petrak ct @ScottPetrak 2m

#Browns player rep Johnson Bademosi said hopes vote on new drug policy comes soon, union knows how important WR Josh Gordon is to team.

Scott Petrak ct @ScottPetrak 2m

#Browns player rep Bademosi said "certainly hope so" WR Josh Gordon will be reinstated under a new drug policy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People I know will be enraged if their leagues hinge on the reversal of a year-long ban. Already heard complaints in multiple leagues. In some leagues there was a free agency period before week 1 waivers (espn default?) and people picked up Gordon for free. It's going to be an epic #%$ show.

Edited by mrip541
Link to post
Share on other sites

He is selling cars right now. Its going to take him a few weeks to get into elite Football Shape.

Last season he was suspended for the first 2 games and wasn't practicing with the team. First game back he had 19 targets, 10 catches, 146 rec yards, a TD and a 22 yard rush. I don't care if they need a crane to get him off his sofa, whenever he is reinstated, he'll be in my lineup.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People I know will be enraged if their leagues hinge on the reversal of a year-long ban. Already heard complaints in multiple leagues. In some leagues there was a free agent period before week 1 waivers (espn default?) and people picked up Gordon for free. It's going to be an epic #%$ show.

Why would they be enraged? They didn't have access to the free agents?

Link to post
Share on other sites

He is selling cars right now. Its going to take him a few weeks to get into elite Football Shape.

Last season he was suspended for the first 2 games and wasn't practicing with the team. First game back he had 19 targets, 10 catches, 146 rec yards, a TD and a 22 yard rush. I don't care if they need a crane to get him off his sofa, whenever he is reinstated, he'll be in my lineup.

and he was in camp playing preseason games a mere 20 days or so ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott Petrak ct ‏@ScottPetrak 2m

#Browns player rep Johnson Bademosi said hopes vote on new drug policy comes soon, union knows how important WR Josh Gordon is to team.

Scott Petrak ct ‏@ScottPetrak 2m

#Browns player rep Bademosi said "certainly hope so" WR Josh Gordon will be reinstated under a new drug policy.

Don't think these comments reflect a definitive timeframe though...

Link to post
Share on other sites

People I know will be enraged if their leagues hinge on the reversal of a year-long ban. Already heard complaints in multiple leagues. In some leagues there was a free agent period before week 1 waivers (espn default?) and people picked up Gordon for free. It's going to be an epic #%$ show.

Why would they be enraged? They didn't have access to the free agents?

I guess it depends on whether you think everyone spamming F5 at 3am on a weekday is how you want your fantasy league decided.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People I know will be enraged if their leagues hinge on the reversal of a year-long ban. Already heard complaints in multiple leagues. In some leagues there was a free agent period before week 1 waivers (espn default?) and people picked up Gordon for free. It's going to be an epic #%$ show.

Why would they be enraged? They didn't have access to the free agents?

I guess it depends on whether you think everyone spamming F5 at 3am on a weekday is how you want your fantasy league decided.

BS

One player doesnt decide a FF league. And this a reflection of a larger problem with that type of waiver system not this unique situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People I know will be enraged if their leagues hinge on the reversal of a year-long ban. Already heard complaints in multiple leagues. In some leagues there was a free agent period before week 1 waivers (espn default?) and people picked up Gordon for free. It's going to be an epic #%$ show.

Why would they be enraged? They didn't have access to the free agents?

I guess it depends on whether you think everyone spamming F5 at 3am on a weekday is how you want your fantasy league decided.

BS

One player doesnt decide a FF league. And this a reflection of a larger problem with that type of waiver system not this unique situation.

I hear you. Just trying to make an argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it depends on whether you think everyone spamming F5 at 3am on a weekday is how you want your fantasy league decided.

Spamming F5 allows users to override waivers? I don't get it.

If you're generally stating that it's unfair that a team is able to pick up a stud off waivers, then that's a crock of ####. Happens every year. Bad on you for not bidding more or picking him up at any time over the last month.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People I know will be enraged if their leagues hinge on the reversal of a year-long ban. Already heard complaints in multiple leagues. In some leagues there was a free agency period before week 1 waivers (espn default?) and people picked up Gordon for free.

Ridiculous to complain about such a thing. The same rules apply to all owners in the league right? Same number of bench spots? Same ability to pick up free agents? And in order to take a chance on Gordon, they had to drop another player, right? These "enraged" people should be laughed at.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

People I know will be enraged if their leagues hinge on the reversal of a year-long ban. Already heard complaints in multiple leagues. In some leagues there was a free agent period before week 1 waivers (espn default?) and people picked up Gordon for free. It's going to be an epic #%$ show.

Why would they be enraged? They didn't have access to the free agents?

I guess it depends on whether you think everyone spamming F5 at 3am on a weekday is how you want your fantasy league decided.

:fishing:

Link to post
Share on other sites

People I know will be enraged if their leagues hinge on the reversal of a year-long ban. Already heard complaints in multiple leagues. In some leagues there was a free agent period before week 1 waivers (espn default?) and people picked up Gordon for free. It's going to be an epic #%$ show.

Why would they be enraged? They didn't have access to the free agents?

I guess it depends on whether you think everyone spamming F5 at 3am on a weekday is how you want your fantasy league decided.

BS

One player doesnt decide a FF league. And this a reflection of a larger problem with that type of waiver system not this unique situation.

I hear you. Just trying to make an argument.

Yeah, I didn't intend that to be a shot at you. I know plenty of people in plenty of leagues will make this argument.

But people complain about everything. If your league has this kind of waiver system then it is what it is. People will get over it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rice got indefinite after they just changed policy to establish 6 games as the first offense. So in that regard, Gordon getting "reduced", and not reinstated right away with everyone else, would not surprise me. But, both still would make no sense. That is the NFL way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Gordon case remains tricky as his failed test took place before new league year, which is when grandfathering in new rules would begin

https://twitter.com/JasonLaCanfora/status/510145906659061760

Again, the language in the agreement is key- WIll the new marijuana policy be applied to all players suspended in 2014 (league year), or will it only apply to players who tested positive during the current year? If it's the former, then Gordon will be reinstated immediately. If it's the latter, then we might be screwed.

I don't know...why go through all the negotiations and back-and-forth only to have this still be an issue? It just seems arbitrary.

I agree that the time of positive test is a morally arbitrary factor and hence it's not fair that Gordon remains suspended while, say, Welker is immediately reinstated. However, amnestying players who failed tests in 2013 might open up a can of worms that the NFL doesn't want to deal with, e.g., some players have already served their suspensions in full and might want compensation, etc.

It isn't a can of worms. Anyone who is currently being punished for a rule that no longer exists they should be "set free". If the rule changes the punishment currently being served must be adjusted.

This isn't about retroactively lifting suspensions, it is about looking at players currently being punished for a rule that no longer exists.

The can of worms is the lawsuits the league opens themselves up to over lost wages for upholding a punishment that is no longer valid.

It is more than just Gordon or Welker playing, it is about the income they are losing and they will sue to get paid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is far from over if it's a 6 - 10 game suspension. When this vote gets approved it gives Josh Gordon new foundation for basis to sue the NFL. He didn't have a solid ground to stand on prior to. Him taking on a job as a car salesman stretches his cause even further. He can argue that he barely passed the drug test with a score of 16 and now it is well under the new score of 50. He can argue that his appeal was decided in 2014. He can argue that now he is forced to make a living as a car salesman. Given these primary factors along with other subsidiary arguments (such as spinning his story that he was never deemed a drug addict) an injunction will be given by the court Judge. His team of lawyers were smart to advise him not to sue. They are simply waiting for the new grounds to become final and then use it against the NFL if he isn't fully reinstated. It has been a week since we last heard of a potential Josh Gordon lawsuit. I am certain that they have the paperwork ready to go if need be.

"Here’s a hypothetical: You were charged and convicted of a crime in the Winter of 2013 and immediately filed an appeal after the conviction. Sometime in 2014, the Court of Appeals affirms your conviction.
In the above hypothetical, your conviction does not become final until the Court of Appeals affirms your conviction. So if a new law is enacted while your case is on appeal, you get the benefit of that law.
How does this apply to Gordon? In a legal sense, I would argue (and believe) that Gordon’s suspension didn’t become final until his appeal was decided. Harold Henderson decided Gordon’s appeal on August 27."

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 games, which is what new policy likely calls for. RT @TK_Smith3: how long do you think Josh Gordon will be suspended after the voting?



Interesting that Garafolo is saying new policy likely calls for 8 games. Not sure what he would be referring to here if the threshold is raised that doesnt make sense. And there is no way a DUI arrest alone calls for 8 games.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael Salfino also says Schefter's 6-10 weeks makes no sense. Says the NFLPA has the power. If someone could copy paste his tweets from the last 15 mins that would b great

He failed with a 16 when the threshold was 15. The threshold is going to 50. Do you want to stand in front of a microphone and defend a 10 game suspension for the next ten weeks. No chance that its 10 plus if they start reinstating players.

But if the new policy doesn't apply to Gordon's case, then his lawyers or NFLPA are going to have to negotiate a carve-out. Hence the reduced suspension instead of immediate reinstatement..

the point is the NFL wants this in the rear view mirror. They are going to get the HGH testing which is a huge win. Then they want this to stop being a media topic. Best way to accomplish that is put players back on the field. If Gordon is suspended it will be for a short time. And there is good chance he will be available immediately.

Yes, this is the media topic they're worried about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Gordon case remains tricky as his failed test took place before new league year, which is when grandfathering in new rules would begin

https://twitter.com/JasonLaCanfora/status/510145906659061760

Again, the language in the agreement is key- WIll the new marijuana policy be applied to all players suspended in 2014 (league year), or will it only apply to players who tested positive during the current year? If it's the former, then Gordon will be reinstated immediately. If it's the latter, then we might be screwed.

I don't know...why go through all the negotiations and back-and-forth only to have this still be an issue? It just seems arbitrary.

I agree that the time of positive test is a morally arbitrary factor and hence it's not fair that Gordon remains suspended while, say, Welker is immediately reinstated. However, amnestying players who failed tests in 2013 might open up a can of worms that the NFL doesn't want to deal with, e.g., some players have already served their suspensions in full and might want compensation, etc.

It isn't a can of worms. Anyone who is currently being punished for a rule that no longer exists they should be "set free". If the rule changes the punishment currently being served must be adjusted.

This isn't about retroactively lifting suspensions, it is about looking at players currently being punished for a rule that no longer exists.

The can of worms is the lawsuits the league opens themselves up to over lost wages for upholding a punishment that is no longer valid.

It is more than just Gordon or Welker playing, it is about the income they are losing and they will sue to get paid.

Okay. Then why did those people who were in prison for violating prohibition not immediately freed when it ended? Because they were in prison for breaking a law. Just because the law changed doesn't mean they didn't break it.

Gordon broke a rule. He was punished. If the rule changed AFTERWARDS, Marty McFly didn't pull up in his Delorean and go back in time so Gordon never smoked the dope. He still broke the rule that was in place at that time.

If they didn't want to lose the income, they shouldn't have smoked up or taken Molly/amphetamines/adderal, whatever he took.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I firmly believe ALL of these sportswriters and beat writers and insiders are looking for the same thing we are. to be right in our prediction. the difference between us and them? We get to use our predictions success in hopes of winning our fantasy league. While they get to use accurate predictions to bolster their career. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, so these guys have to be saying "something" no matter how far off we may think it could be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Gordon case remains tricky as his failed test took place before new league year, which is when grandfathering in new rules would begin

https://twitter.com/JasonLaCanfora/status/510145906659061760

Again, the language in the agreement is key- WIll the new marijuana policy be applied to all players suspended in 2014 (league year), or will it only apply to players who tested positive during the current year? If it's the former, then Gordon will be reinstated immediately. If it's the latter, then we might be screwed.

I don't know...why go through all the negotiations and back-and-forth only to have this still be an issue? It just seems arbitrary.

I agree that the time of positive test is a morally arbitrary factor and hence it's not fair that Gordon remains suspended while, say, Welker is immediately reinstated. However, amnestying players who failed tests in 2013 might open up a can of worms that the NFL doesn't want to deal with, e.g., some players have already served their suspensions in full and might want compensation, etc.

It isn't a can of worms. Anyone who is currently being punished for a rule that no longer exists they should be "set free". If the rule changes the punishment currently being served must be adjusted.

This isn't about retroactively lifting suspensions, it is about looking at players currently being punished for a rule that no longer exists.

The can of worms is the lawsuits the league opens themselves up to over lost wages for upholding a punishment that is no longer valid.

It is more than just Gordon or Welker playing, it is about the income they are losing and they will sue to get paid.

If in the agreement they state retroactive to this year....good luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People I know will be enraged if their leagues hinge on the reversal of a year-long ban. Already heard complaints in multiple leagues. In some leagues there was a free agency period before week 1 waivers (espn default?) and people picked up Gordon for free.

Ridiculous to complain about such a thing. The same rules apply to all owners in the league right? Same number of bench spots? Same ability to pick up free agents? And in order to take a chance on Gordon, they had to drop another player, right? These "enraged" people should be laughed at.

I won't complain or become "enraged", but it is a bit annoying that leagues that drafted after the news that his suspension was upheld are suddenly going to turn pretty drastically when someone gets him for blind bidding dollars or waiver priority instead of a late 1st round pick. Not that there's anything you can do about it. Unusual situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Following up on Salfino's tweet below, I know for a fact that Gordon will sue since he will have a solid ground to stand on based on the new policies. No way he agrees to be suspended 6 games without pay when he knows the court Judge will give him an injunction right away to start earning his salary.

"Michael Salfino @MichaelSalfino

· 7m


For Gordon to get say six games, the union would have to agree and he'd have to agree not to sue even tho legal under new policy."

Link to post
Share on other sites

People I know will be enraged if their leagues hinge on the reversal of a year-long ban. Already heard complaints in multiple leagues. In some leagues there was a free agent period before week 1 waivers (espn default?) and people picked up Gordon for free. It's going to be an epic #%$ show.

Why would they be enraged? They didn't have access to the free agents?

I guess it depends on whether you think everyone spamming F5 at 3am on a weekday is how you want your fantasy league decided.

Change the league rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's 8 games, I can live with that. Will have him for the final 6 games plus playoffs.

I've got a short bench - not sure I can afford to hold that long for questionable results when he returns - I need week 5 or sooner - I can hold him through his week 4 bye.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's 8 games, I can live with that. Will have him for the final 6 games plus playoffs.

I've got a short bench - not sure I can afford to hold that long for questionable results when he returns - I need week 5 or sooner - I can hold him through his week 4 bye.

you may have to get creative with a trade or 2

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Gordon case remains tricky as his failed test took place before new league year, which is when grandfathering in new rules would begin

https://twitter.com/JasonLaCanfora/status/510145906659061760

Again, the language in the agreement is key- WIll the new marijuana policy be applied to all players suspended in 2014 (league year), or will it only apply to players who tested positive during the current year? If it's the former, then Gordon will be reinstated immediately. If it's the latter, then we might be screwed.

I don't know...why go through all the negotiations and back-and-forth only to have this still be an issue? It just seems arbitrary.

I agree that the time of positive test is a morally arbitrary factor and hence it's not fair that Gordon remains suspended while, say, Welker is immediately reinstated. However, amnestying players who failed tests in 2013 might open up a can of worms that the NFL doesn't want to deal with, e.g., some players have already served their suspensions in full and might want compensation, etc.

It isn't a can of worms. Anyone who is currently being punished for a rule that no longer exists they should be "set free". If the rule changes the punishment currently being served must be adjusted.

This isn't about retroactively lifting suspensions, it is about looking at players currently being punished for a rule that no longer exists.

The can of worms is the lawsuits the league opens themselves up to over lost wages for upholding a punishment that is no longer valid.

It is more than just Gordon or Welker playing, it is about the income they are losing and they will sue to get paid.

If the agreement is what's being reported, then the NFL wants the new policy to apply only to players who failed tests in 2014. I say that because, clearly, the NFLPA would want the new policy to apply to all players currently being disciplined under the old one. In my post above, I hinted at one possible reason. If the NFL amnesties, say, Gordon, then it opens itself up to lawsuits by players who failed tests in 2013 and served their suspensions. Indeed, if I happened to be one of those players, then I would want back pay for games missed, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Gordon case remains tricky as his failed test took place before new league year, which is when grandfathering in new rules would begin

https://twitter.com/JasonLaCanfora/status/510145906659061760

Again, the language in the agreement is key- WIll the new marijuana policy be applied to all players suspended in 2014 (league year), or will it only apply to players who tested positive during the current year? If it's the former, then Gordon will be reinstated immediately. If it's the latter, then we might be screwed.

I don't know...why go through all the negotiations and back-and-forth only to have this still be an issue? It just seems arbitrary.

I agree that the time of positive test is a morally arbitrary factor and hence it's not fair that Gordon remains suspended while, say, Welker is immediately reinstated. However, amnestying players who failed tests in 2013 might open up a can of worms that the NFL doesn't want to deal with, e.g., some players have already served their suspensions in full and might want compensation, etc.

It isn't a can of worms. Anyone who is currently being punished for a rule that no longer exists they should be "set free". If the rule changes the punishment currently being served must be adjusted.

This isn't about retroactively lifting suspensions, it is about looking at players currently being punished for a rule that no longer exists.

The can of worms is the lawsuits the league opens themselves up to over lost wages for upholding a punishment that is no longer valid.

It is more than just Gordon or Welker playing, it is about the income they are losing and they will sue to get paid.

If in the agreement they state retroactive to this year....good luck.

Lifting Gordon's suspension is not retroactive.

What would be retroactive would be had he already served the suspension and they decided to retroactively pay his missed salary.

But lifting a penalty that is currently being served because the the rule that was broken has changed is not "retroactive".

Under what system of fairness should he continue to be punished for a rule that no longer applies to him?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if he does get 8 games, it's a disaster for those in the FBG format. Or those who spent nearly their whole bankroll on him. Talking week 11 he's back with the bye included. Last week of regular season in the FFPC. Your season could already be over for 3 weeks by then. I realize if you made the playoffs, it's well worth it. Getting there would be the issue though.

Edited by Da Gildz
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if he does get 8 games, it's a disaster for those in the FBG format. Or those who spent nearly their whole bankroll on him. Talking week 11 he's back with the bye included. Last week of regular season in the FFPC. Your season could already be over for 3 weeks by then. I realize if you made the playoffs, it's well worth it. Getting there would be the issue though.

I'm pretty sure it would include games he's already sat out, so he'd be back week 9.

I don't see how it would be 8 games. It seems like players would either have their suspensions overturned or they won't. What, are they just going to cut them all in half?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if he does get 8 games, it's a disaster for those in the FBG format. Or those who spent nearly their whole bankroll on him. Talking week 11 he's back with the bye included. Last week of regular season in the FFPC. Your season could already be over for 3 weeks by then. I realize if you made the playoffs, it's well worth it. Getting there would be the issue though.

I'm pretty sure it would include games he's already sat out, so he'd be back week 9.

I don't see how it would be 8 games. It seems like players would either have their suspensions overturned or they won't. What, are they just going to cut them all in half?

week 10 they have a bye in week 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...