Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

***Official Melvin "Flash" Gordon*** Thread of Love


gianmarco

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Hankmoody said:

Otherwise every holdout would toll into the following season by however many games they held out, and it just doesn't work that way.

That's not what the standard contract says. The tolling is rounded to the nearest full season.

No player under contract has ever held out more than eight games, so we don't know what would happen if someone tried it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Ray Barboni said:

Curious if the latest injury to Hunter Henry and Mike Williams questionable knee might give Melvin some extra leverage.

They clearly need playmakers. 

Lets hope the Chargers FO recognizes this and gives him a decent offer. 

Melvin's leverage went to zero after the Austin Ekeler show last weekend. They are not giving him any offers whatsoever.

He's just throwing away paychecks at this point.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Patrick the Pirate said:

Melvin's leverage went to zero after the Austin Ekeler show last weekend. They are not giving him any offers whatsoever.

He's just throwing away paychecks at this point.

Disagree.

Loosing Henry isn’t such a big deal, but it’s still a factor. The potential Mike Williams knee issue just means they are loosing another pass catcher/play maker.

Maybe I’m trying to be too optimistic on the Gordon front. But it just seems logical that he gained some leverage with the latest injuries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ray Barboni said:

Disagree.

Loosing Henry isn’t such a big deal, but it’s still a factor. The potential Mike Williams knee issue just means they are loosing another pass catcher/play maker.

Maybe I’m trying to be too optimistic on the Gordon front. But it just seems logical that he gained some leverage with the latest injuries.

They aren't negotiating a contract any more. Why would they?  He's under contract. Has to come back in 7 weeks. And they only have to pay him 1/2 his salary.

His best chance is to talk to the Bucs or 49ers. But I would imagine they have little interest in signing him for $13m a year for 3+ years. If he hasn't found out his market is right in line with what the Chargers offered him at this point, he's stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Ray Barboni said:

Maybe I’m trying to be too optimistic on the Gordon front.

Yes, you are.

40 minutes ago, Ray Barboni said:

But it just seems logical that he gained some leverage with the latest injuries.

No, it doesn't. That isn't logical at all. The Chargers still have 2 more RBs they like who haven't even played yet (Pope and Newsome). Even if Ekeler or Jackson got hurt, it wouldn't provide Gordon with leverage.

Gordon has zero leverage. He got bad advice, yet he continues to follow it. He should fire his agent, report, and try to work himself back into the starting/primary role. It is no given he will get it back. IMO the Chargers would have lost if most of the RB touches in Sunday's game went to Gordon, and I hope that is not lost on the coaching staff.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Just Win Baby said:

Yes, you are.

No, it doesn't. That isn't logical at all. The Chargers still have 2 more RBs they like who haven't even played yet (Pope and Newsome). Even if Ekeler or Jackson got hurt, it wouldn't provide Gordon with leverage.

Gordon has zero leverage. He got bad advice, yet he continues to follow it. He should fire his agent, report, and try to work himself back into the starting/primary role. It is no given he will get it back. IMO the Chargers would have lost if most of the RB touches in Sunday's game went to Gordon, and I hope that is not lost on the coaching staff.

I wonder if it is really bad advice. I mean if he gets hurt he loses a lot of guaranteed money I would think. So maybe sitting out is a rational decision...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Just Win Baby said:

Yes, you are.

No, it doesn't. That isn't logical at all. The Chargers still have 2 more RBs they like who haven't even played yet (Pope and Newsome). Even if Ekeler or Jackson got hurt, it wouldn't provide Gordon with leverage.

Gordon has zero leverage. He got bad advice, yet he continues to follow it. He should fire his agent, report, and try to work himself back into the starting/primary role. It is no given he will get it back. IMO the Chargers would have lost if most of the RB touches in Sunday's game went to Gordon, and I hope that is not lost on the coaching staff.

I don’t think it changes anything in regards to paying Melvin but I do think it’s highly unlikely that they share that opinion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tool said:

I wonder if it is really bad advice. I mean if he gets hurt he loses a lot of guaranteed money I would think. So maybe sitting out is a rational decision...

Everything depends on his market next year. If he can't find a deal as good as what the Chargers were offering and he's throwing out $2M+ this year then it's terrible advice that he got.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Patrick the Pirate said:

Everything depends on his market next year. If he can't find a deal as good as what the Chargers were offering and he's throwing out $2M+ this year then it's terrible advice that he got.

 

True, but did any details of the Chargers come out, all I remember hearing was 10 M / year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Just Win Baby said:

Yes, you are.

No, it doesn't. That isn't logical at all. The Chargers still have 2 more RBs they like who haven't even played yet (Pope and Newsome). Even if Ekeler or Jackson got hurt, it wouldn't provide Gordon with leverage.

Gordon has zero leverage. He got bad advice, yet he continues to follow it. He should fire his agent, report, and try to work himself back into the starting/primary role. It is no given he will get it back. IMO the Chargers would have lost if most of the RB touches in Sunday's game went to Gordon, and I hope that is not lost on the coaching staff.

😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ray Barboni said:

Maybe I’m trying to be too optimistic on the Gordon front. But it just seems logical that he gained some leverage with the latest injuries.

Depends.

He gained a lot of leverage if he can start at WR or TE. Of course, he really has the MOST leverage if he can start at LT. If he can play S better than Derwin James then he has some pretty strong leverage as well.

The problem is Ekeler has just played about as well as Gordon has every played at RB..... so if Gordon plans on playing RB I think he's actually LOST leverage.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Just Win Baby said:

Laugh all you want. Gordon has never in his career displayed vision like Ekeler did on Sunday. Zero chance Gordon scores on that pass Ekeler took for a 55 yard TD.

Melvin Gordon, if you'll pardon me butting in, was never that great a back but for volume, it seemed to me. Ekeler and Jackson are doing just fine in his stead. That's a layman's outsider's two cents, and has nothing to do with traditionally siding with mgmt/player during labor negotiations. I usually side with mgmt in RB situations because the RBs are generally wrong about their own worth, fair or not.

Edited by rockaction
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Just Win Baby said:

Yes, you are.

No, it doesn't. That isn't logical at all. The Chargers still have 2 more RBs they like who haven't even played yet (Pope and Newsome). Even if Ekeler or Jackson got hurt, it wouldn't provide Gordon with leverage.

Gordon has zero leverage. He got bad advice, yet he continues to follow it. He should fire his agent, report, and try to work himself back into the starting/primary role. It is no given he will get it back. IMO the Chargers would have lost if most of the RB touches in Sunday's game went to Gordon, and I hope that is not lost on the coaching staff.

Explain your logic here. What are you basing this statement on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tool said:

I wonder if it is really bad advice. I mean if he gets hurt he loses a lot of guaranteed money I would think. So maybe sitting out is a rational decision...

What is the chance, on a per-game basis, that a starting running back will suffer an injury that affects his future earnings? ACL tears don't seem to have a long-term effect anymore. It would have to be a torn Achilles (and even that's not as bad as it once was) or a compound fracture or dislocated ankle or a life-changing concussion or something along those lines.

There are 512 RB starts each season. How often does a running back suffer an injury so bad that it affects his future earnings? It happened to Robert Edwards 20 years ago, but that wasn't even during an NFL game. It happened to Napolean McCallum 25 years ago. Off the top of my head, I can't think of other injuries to RBs that have been career-ending (since ACL reconstructions have become routine). If we expand to non-RBs, Alex Smith counts, as does Joe Theismann. Darryl Stingley, Dennis Byrd... (But expanding to non-RBs makes the denominator grow as well.)

I'm sure I'm missing some, but let's say there have been 10 examples in the last 20 years. That's about a 0.1% chance per game.

So skipping a game for $330,000 would be worthwhile if Gordon had a 0.1% chance of having his future earnings reduced by ... $330 million.

Even if we bump it up to a 0.5% chance per game, the risk to his future earnings would have to be over $60 million to justify sitting out.

I don't think that's realistic. In purely monetary terms, I think it's pretty clearly -EV to miss games for $330,000 each.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

There are 512 RB starts each season. How often does a running back suffer an injury so bad that it affects his future earnings? It happened to Robert Edwards 20 years ago, but that wasn't even during an NFL game. It happened to Napolean McCallum 25 years ago. Off the top of my head, I can't think of other injuries to RBs that have been career-ending (since ACL reconstructions have become routine). If we expand to non-RBs, Alex Smith counts, as does Joe Theismann. Darryl Stingley, Dennis Byrd... (But expanding to non-RBs makes the denominator grow as well.)

I'm sure I'm missing some, but let's say there have been 10 examples in the last 20 years. That's about a 0.1% chance per game.

Bo Jackson and Jahvid Best also had career-ending injuries. Plus there are many other guys who suffered major injuries, then made partial comebacks, only to be forced into retirement (Terrell Davis, Priest Holmes, Jamaal Charles).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

Bo Jackson and Jahvid Best also had career-ending injuries. Plus there are many other guys who suffered major injuries, then made partial comebacks, only to be forced into retirement (Terrell Davis, Priest Holmes, Jamaal Charles).

Good call. Counting all of them gets us to six RBs (including Robert Edwards), just over halfway to the 10 I assumed in order to reach a 0.1% chance per game (and still well short of the 50 it would take to get to 0.5%).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ShamrockPride said:

Explain your logic here. What are you basing this statement on?

I'm basing it on the following:

  1. Ekeler and Jackson combined for 115 rushing yards, 63 of which were yards after contact. I don't think Gordon would have been as successful after contact.
  2. Ekeler and Jackson combined for 100 receiving yards and 117 yards after the catch. I don't think Gordon would have been as successful after the catch.
  3. Ekeler and Jackson combined to force 10 missed tackles. I don't think Gordon would have forced that many.

I believe all of these things because I believe both Ekeler and Jackson have better vision than Gordon. I realize many will disagree, and I'm fine with that.

I suppose they might not have lost with Gordon getting most of those touches. But I believe they would have gotten less production from those touches in that case, so, to the extent that production was needed to win, it would have had to have been made up elsewhere.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/8/2019 at 11:04 AM, Hankmoody said:

His trade value has tanked.  Earlier this week I was offered Gordon for Singletary and Funchess in a dynasty leage.  And I didn't even really consider it even though Singletary isn't a starter.

I was just offered Diggs for him.  Think I have to cash out

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, [scooter] said:

Bo Jackson and Jahvid Best also had career-ending injuries. Plus there are many other guys who suffered major injuries, then made partial comebacks, only to be forced into retirement (Terrell Davis, Priest Holmes, Jamaal Charles).

I think this is a large part of what is going on and is really the only rational reason Gordon is going this far.

Last season by most measures Gordon was having his most efficient season as a runner/receiver. That is he was BEFORE his latest injury. After week 12 last season he rushed 22 times for 83 yards, and had 6 catches for 37 yards in the regular season. Then in two post game appearances he rushed 26 times for 55 yards, and had 2 catches for 14 yards. If anyone actually watched the four games Gordon played after week 12 they would admit he just didn't look like the same guy.

If Gordon thinks that he may never return to 2018 week 12 health again then this holdout makes all the sense in the world and I would do the same thing. Or if he doesn't think he had much of a chance to stand up to the rigors of an entire season this holdout again makes complete sense. Ideally he gets his big payday before the middle of the season but worst case scenario for Gordon is he comes back in the middle of the season and plays some sort of RBBC due to the acrimony he has with the chargers. Based on the trade interest the chargers reportedly received I don't honestly think any NFL team is going to give Gordon the contract he wants but this strategy at least hides from the rest of the league that Gordon may not think he could make it through another season with a full work load even if he wanted to.

The big problem Gordon has is Ekeler with a slightly expanded role doesn't look much different to me than Gordon has the past three seasons. And Ekeler looks like a much better player than Gordon since week 12 last season. I don't mean by a small margin, either. As [scooter] points out there is a long list of guys that include Terrell Davis, Priest Holmes, and Jamaal Charles that all thought they could come back from one last injury to be bell-cow RB's...... but they couldn't. Keep in mind Gordon has never EVER been in the class of those types of players so a much smaller drop-off could completely torpedo his career.

I don't wish that upon Gordon, but if he believed that this was what was happening with his body then his actions make a lot more sense.

 

Edited by BoltBacker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe there are a lot of new Ekeler owners in this thread.  Sure, he looks good in 1 game.  Do you think Ekeler is going to make it through the full season getting that amount of carries?  I dont.  He is a great change of pace guy, but he is no Gordon.  If he isn't hurt, Gordon is much better than either of his backups.  Maybe not 10 million better, and that is the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dr. Octopus said:

I don’t doubt you believe that but it’s really based on nothing. How could anyone possibly know that? 

You are correct. I do believe that. I had Ekeler last year.  I watched. My own vision of the talent is all that I have. I cant predict an injury, but in my eye test, Gordon was definitely  a better RB.  If I can't trust my own analysis, I dont deserve to win.  Most people regurgitate what they read.  I might win that way if I get lucky...usually not in my experience.  Just my thoughts.  I'm just one more opinion on a message board, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

What is the chance, on a per-game basis, that a starting running back will suffer an injury that affects his future earnings? ACL tears don't seem to have a long-term effect anymore. It would have to be a torn Achilles (and even that's not as bad as it once was) or a compound fracture or dislocated ankle or a life-changing concussion or something along those lines.

There are 512 RB starts each season. How often does a running back suffer an injury so bad that it affects his future earnings? It happened to Robert Edwards 20 years ago, but that wasn't even during an NFL game. It happened to Napolean McCallum 25 years ago. Off the top of my head, I can't think of other injuries to RBs that have been career-ending (since ACL reconstructions have become routine). If we expand to non-RBs, Alex Smith counts, as does Joe Theismann. Darryl Stingley, Dennis Byrd... (But expanding to non-RBs makes the denominator grow as well.)

I'm sure I'm missing some, but let's say there have been 10 examples in the last 20 years. That's about a 0.1% chance per game.

So skipping a game for $330,000 would be worthwhile if Gordon had a 0.1% chance of having his future earnings reduced by ... $330 million.

Even if we bump it up to a 0.5% chance per game, the risk to his future earnings would have to be over $60 million to justify sitting out.

I don't think that's realistic. In purely monetary terms, I think it's pretty clearly -EV to miss games for $330,000 each.

I agree with your overall idea, but it's more than just "career ending" injuries that he's taking into account here.  It's also season ending ones, too.  If he were to report today and play the next few games and have an ACL or similar injury in week 8 and miss the rest of the season - sure he'd still likely find work next year, but at no where near the guaranteed money that he'd receive if he goes into the offseason fully healthy and not recovering from something. 

I'm sure not great examples of this, but at least a few recent ones:

Bilal Powell made over $7m on the Jets the past two seasons.  Was put on IR with a neck issue last year (not career ending) and ended up resigning with the Jets for pretty much vet minimum. 

Crowell set a single game rushing record for the Jets last year, and I believe made $4m for one season of work - had toe injury late in year and had a very small market this past offseason (and then got hurt again)

Ajayi had an ACL last year, couldn't even find work the following year.

Jeremy Hill was the Pats power back last year.  ACL in week 1, can't find work the following year.

Even Adrian Peterson saw a much different market after the 2016 season than he would have had he not had a meniscus injury.  Had it not happened, the Vikings may have exercised their 2017 ($18m) option.  Instead he goes to New Orleans and the Cardinals (where in his first game he had 134 yards and 2 TDs) and then had a 1,000+ yard season on yet another team - so he obviously wasn't done as a player, but the injury (which he did come back from) cost him millions. 

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, plymkr said:

Maybe there are a lot of new Ekeler owners in this thread.  Sure, he looks good in 1 game.  Do you think Ekeler is going to make it through the full season getting that amount of carries?  I dont.  He is a great change of pace guy, but he is no Gordon.  If he isn't hurt, Gordon is much better than either of his backups.  Maybe not 10 million better, and that is the issue.

12 carries per game?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, plymkr said:

Do you think Ekeler is going to make it through the full season getting that amount of carries?  I dont.  He is a great change of pace guy, but he is no Gordon.

Well, first of all, Gordon has only made it through a full season in 1 of 4 seasons to date, and we know he won't this season since he already missed a game. Ekeler played a full season in 2017 and missed 2 games last season.

Aside from that, while Ekeler played college football at Western State, clearly far removed from NFL level competition, it is still noteworthy that in 40 games he had 939 rushing attempts (23.5 per game) and 115 receptions (2.9 per game). It is also well known that he is regarded as the strongest player on the Chargers, pound for pound.

So your implication that he can't handle the workload is off base IMO.

Edited by Just Win Baby
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Cobbler1 said:

Gordon gets a full 3 down workload though. Ekeler doesn’t or at least hasn’t yet. One game he had 15 carries through 2.5 quarters. Then he got hurt. The other games without Gordon have been 12, 13, and 12 carries. 

Gordon has averaged 19.6 touches per game in his career. Ekeler just had 18 touches in week 1. I don't see a big difference.

There is no way to prove Ekeler can hold up. We will have to see. But there is no real basis to believe he can't hold up just as well as Gordon or better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Just Win Baby said:

Well, first of all, Gordon has only made it through a full season in 1 of 4 seasons to date, and we know he won't this season since he already missed a game. Ekeler played a full season in 2017 and missed 2 games last season.

Aside from that, while Ekeler played college football at Western State, clearly far removed from NFL level competition, it is still noteworthy that in 40 games he had 939 rushing attempts (23.5 per game) and 115 receptions (2.9 per game). It is also well known that he is regarded as the strongest player on the Chargers, pound for pound.

So your implication that he can't handle the workload is off base IMO.

Well, it's all opinions isn't it? I have mine, and you have yours.  Agree to disagree. I stated my thoughts. and I read the article.(which was great, btw) I dont think Ekeler will last with a large workload.  I already stated earlier that this opinion was totally based on my own thoughts from watching film.  

Fantasy wise, I have Gordon (redraft. Bought cheap (auction $4) and do not depend on him. I'd like for him to come back so maybe I can trade him or play him. It wont matter that much though.   Hell be back eventually, and fresh for the playoff hopefully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JoeJoe88 said:

How many full seasons has Gordon made it through again? 

Full seasons = 16 games?  If so, more than Zeke (the current highest paid RB) or Fournette (the 8th highest paid RB), and the same as Gurley (the 2nd highest paid RB) and Bell (the 3rd highest paid RB) and Freeman (the 5th highest paid RB) and Barkley (the 6th highest paid RB) and McKinnon (the 7th highest paid RB, currently on the IR).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Just Win Baby said:

Gordon has averaged 19.6 touches per game in his career. Ekeler just had 18 touches in week 1. I don't see a big difference.

There is no way to prove Ekeler can hold up. We will have to see. But there is no real basis to believe he can't hold up just as well as Gordon or better.

Come on man. First off you’re including every game Melvin has played including his rookie year as he worked up to speed, the games he left early with injury, games he was being worked back in from injury, and all kinds of game scripts. You’re comparing that to a one game sample which happened to be a home game as a touchdown favorite that the Chargers led the whole time and went to OT. Ekeler had 15 touches in regulation (9 carries). Second I’m at least comparing Ekeler’s 3 down usage to Melvin’s and the difference is that Melvin gets way more carries. Melvin averaged 17.4 carries per game the past 3 years. I could trump that up even higher by going into that sample and removing games he left for injury/games he got less than his usual work as he worked back from injury but I really don’t need to. We only have 4 games as a starter to use for Ekeler but again he’s had 12, 15, (injured), 13, and 9 (12 if you want to think every game will go to OT). Gordon’s and Ekeler’s usage hasn’t been the same and probably won’t be so asking how many seasons Melvin has made it through really doesn’t make sense.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Cobbler1 said:

Come on man. First off you’re including every game Melvin has played including his rookie year as he worked up to speed, the games he left early with injury, games he was being worked back in from injury, and all kinds of game scripts. You’re comparing that to a one game sample which happened to be a home game as a touchdown favorite that the Chargers led the whole time and went to OT. Ekeler had 15 touches in regulation (9 carries). Second I’m at least comparing Ekeler’s 3 down usage to Melvin’s and the difference is that Melvin gets way more carries. Melvin averaged 17.4 carries per game the past 3 years. I could trump that up even higher by going into that sample and removing games he left for injury/games he got less than his usual work as he worked back from injury but I really don’t need to. We only have 4 games as a starter to use for Ekeler but again he’s had 12, 15, (injured), 13, and 9 (12 if you want to think every game will go to OT). Gordon’s and Ekeler’s usage hasn’t been the same and probably won’t be so asking how many seasons Melvin has made it through really doesn’t make sense.

Ekeler is not Gordon. They have different strengths. It stands to reason that the team will use Ekeler differently than they used Gordon. I think touches are more representative of workload than rushing attempts. YMMV.

The point of this tangent of conversation is whether or not Ekeler can hold up to the primary RB workload the Chargers will give him. Some people think he can't. I disagree. We'll have to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My take: I've followed the Chargers for a long time. Gordon is not that special--he's a good kid, but it seems he's always needed volume and a ton of TDs to produce his fantasy value. Football-wise? I think the Chargers are making the correct decision and hold all of the cards. They like Ekeler and Jackson in a committee-situation. Ekeler is not a bell-cow back; but he doesn't need to be one to produce RB2 with RB1 upside numbers. He's very dynamic in the passing game and provides a good change of pace when running out of the backfield. I picked up both as a hedge, in case they preserve Ekeler (which in the past, he seems to produce better with fewer touches) or he gets knocked out a game or two because of injury. Jackson will no doubt get some 1st/2nd down looks and goal line work so he has some flex value alongside his value as a good handcuff.

Lastly, knowing the Chargers, they do not respond well to holdouts or demands from players. Outside of Rivers and Gates, they do not take care of their players (see Vincent Jackson and Eric Weddle as prime examples, but they also unceremoniously unloaded LT). 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Just Win Baby said:

Ekeler is not Gordon. They have different strengths. It stands to reason that the team will use Ekeler differently than they used Gordon. I think touches are more representative of workload than rushing attempts. YMMV.

The point of this tangent of conversation is whether or not Ekeler can hold up to the primary RB workload the Chargers will give him. Some people think he can't. I disagree. We'll have to see.

Agree to disagree with your first paragraph about all touches being the same but that’s fine. The post of mine in this convo was a response to someone throwing shade about Melvin not playing full seasons. To me it apples to oranges because their use is different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Weebs210 said:

A teams wr2 who just threw the ball 10 times total week 1. Hard pass.

Who knows what you’ll get from Gordon this year and he will be 27 at the start of next year.   His value was always tenuous and he would likely be a depreciating asset moving forward.   Diggs’ value should hold over the next handful of years 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Skeletore Eh said:

Who knows what you’ll get from Gordon this year and he will be 27 at the start of next year.   His value was always tenuous and he would likely be a depreciating asset moving forward.   Diggs’ value should hold over the next handful of years 

As a dynasty Gordon owner, I like that deal for you.

WR’s age much better than RB’s. We know that. Gordon has maybe 1-2 more years of top production left in him. 

Good deal for you considering the weather 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jeremy fowler aka. capt obvious... reporting gordon will return this season.... 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/27608301/source-gordon-holdout-not-leveon-situation

 

edit, gordon pushing back on twitter for some reason https://twitter.com/Melvingordon25/status/1172611939954040833

Quote

Stop listening to sources you don’t hear it quoted by me !!! It ain’t me

 

Edited by iamkoza
Link to comment
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...