Suspension question

[Wamu]

He didn't just "smoke a little weed".

Did you miss the point I was trying to make? I said he deserves to be punished, this is not his first offense. But to me knocking your now wife out cold & racking up 4 felonies deserves more than Rice's 2 game suspension or the lack of discipline handed down to Irsay.

 

[wilwhite]

Funnily, this time it was just a little weed. Two specimens - one under the limit, one baaaaarely over.

And from what I understand the limit is really low.

 

[Sam Sportboy]

Personally I could give a shit if they all smoked weed................hell, to me it's not that big of a deal.

 

[broncosmitty]

Did you miss the point I was trying to make? I said he deserves to be punished, this is not his first offense. But to me knocking your now wife out cold & racking up 4 felonies deserves more than Rice's 2 game suspension or the lack of discipline handed down to Irsay.

I don't disagree. (Rice's situation makes absolutely no sense to me.) But Gordon, while not violent, still put people's lives at risk. I don't think he plays this year. Nor deserves to.

 

[wilwhite]

Personally I could give a shit if they all smoked weed................hell, to me it's not that big of a deal.

Yeah, it's not like he's filling my prescription or driving my kid's school bus - he's catching a ball on my TV.

 

[wilwhite]

Nasty - yeah, Rice should still be the number 1 when he gets back. That could get screwed up a little if Pierce is really good in the first two games (or more likely, if Taliaferro is really good), and screwed up a lot if Rice runs like he did last year.

 

[TREFF]

Gordon does deserve to be punished, but a year? Basically what the NFL is saying is right now domestic violence & felony drug charges aren't as big a deal as smoking a little weed.

People that say this either don't understand how the CBA works, and that there are collectively bargained penalties, in black and white, directly associated with drug offenses, while the personal conduct is completely a discretionary system. Or they disagree with how it works and if that's the case you're pissing in the wind until they renegotiate it.

Gordon had his 2 game suspension for his seconds drug offense last year, no penalty for his first offense other than a "treatment program" Ray Rice has a spotless record until now and gets 2 games for his first ever offense. Did he deserve it? Hell yes he did, but where are these People screaming about equality when he's a first time offender and everyone in the drug program gets a freebie? They weren't saying sqwat, because it's an apples to oranges discussion, but now they can twist it to the point they like so now it's a big deal that Ray Rice got off easy and the poor pothead is being persecuted. total crap in my mind to even attempt to compare the two

 

[Wamu]

I don't disagree. (Rice's situation makes absolutely no sense to me.) But Gordon, while not violent, still put people's lives at risk. I don't think he plays this year. Nor deserves to.

I have nothing against marijuana at all. But one thing I simply can't do is say driving stoned is even in same ballpark as driving drunk. Neither should be done, EVER. And I'm not saying that's what you are saying either. Just wanted to mention this & I'm not being hypocritical...at one time I used to drink & smoke up & then as stupid as it was get behind the wheel of my vehicle. Talk about some really bad decisions 20 + years ago or so! Anyway I would just like the NFL to be a little more balanced w/ their punishments.

 

[TKOSpikes]

As for Rice. I don't think he's anywhere near his former self. Pierce is the Alfred Morris of the Ravens, IMO, and will get 1st and 2nd down.

 

[TKOSpikes]

As for Gordon, don't blame anyone for taking the chance of his upside, but beyond the fact that Norv is gone, in 14 man rosters, I'm not losing the roster space to get him back for 8, 4, whatever games... but for the 0.0001 chance he plays 16, why not. I do not however, expect any kind of repeat performance.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

As for Gordon, don't blame anyone for taking the chance of his upside, but beyond the fact that Norv is gone, in 14 man rosters, I'm not losing the roster space to get him back for 8, 4, whatever games... but for the 0.0001 chance he plays 16, why not. I do not however, expect any kind of repeat performance.

As long as he plays this season he has value, even if he doesn't play as often... It is irrelevant if he has a repeat performance or not, and nobody thinks he will(especially with the revamped running game).

The good thing in fantasy is that we generally know who the best teams in the league are going to be by week 4 or 5. And there may be a team that starts preparing for the playoffs by week 7...

If you draft him and you are playoff bound then he is a difference maker, if you are borderline and he is not yet playing there will be teams looking to trade for him, looking to make that playoff run... You will get good value for him whether you play him or not...

So as long as he is going to play any games this season he is worth drafting, worse case scenario he will be trade bait, and he will be the best trade bait out there... Best case scenario he plays for your team...

 

[leftypower]

I don't think I'd be inclined to take a flyer on him until the 11th. Like someone else has stated, how many of the guys you draft after 10 do you actually keep on the team. I personally, believe it's gonna be either 8 or 16 games. The DUI will probably be a factor as well (although it may not be stated that way). After the ruling comes down this week(?), there will be really happy people or very sad ones. ....

 

[broncosmitty]

I have nothing against marijuana at all. But one thing I simply can't do is say driving stoned is even in same ballpark as driving drunk. Neither should be done, EVER. And I'm not saying that's what you are saying either. Just wanted to mention this & I'm not being hypocritical...at one time I used to drink & smoke up & then as stupid as it was get behind the wheel of my vehicle. Talk about some really bad decisions 20 + years ago or so! Anyway I would just like the NFL to be a little more balanced w/ their punishments.

Anyone who can say they never could have got a DUI is much more responsible than I was in my youth.

But....He had his freebie. And he wasted it. The entire point of the NFLs substance abuse policy is to curb poor decision making IMO. (And cover their legal behind.)And he is either incapable, or doesn't care. When it's weed that's at the root of his problems, that's sad. (I've been an everyday smoker for almost as much of my life as I haven't, so Im not judging him for smoking. Im judging him for being a dumbass that can't put the bowl down. The lone friend I have that played in the NFL wouldn't let me in his truck or get in my car without asking if I had any on me. Because he knew what he had to lose.). It's not as if someone asked him to quit smoking cigerettes, drinking pop/coffee or beer. Those are addictive. Shouldn't be that hard to just lay off the reefer, if you ask me.

 

[Xponentialchaos]

Goodell is really taking his time with these suspension rulings. I wonder what the deal is.

 

[tlance]

Here is the assessment you have to make when looking at Josh Gordon. It is all about risk/reward and value.

IF we knew for sure that Gordon were going to be eligible to play in game 1 (almost impossible) then I would argue that he would still be taken near the middle of the third round in A. Jeffrey/ R. Cobb territory. There is tremendous upside here, but when you factor in the Browns QB situation and Gordon's disinterested pre-season play, there is pretty significant risk before we even consider the looming suspension. Gordon has been through a lot over the past few months and it would be unwise to simply assume he will pick up right where he left off when he does return.

When considering the suspension, there is a good chance that he will play 0 games this season and there are some pretty good WRs available in rounds 7-10.

While it is true that somebody in your league could reach for Gordon in those rounds, that is not a risk likely to pay off. I will be taking guys like Terrance West, D'Andre Hawkins, and Justin Hunter at those spots. These players have the upside to outproduce Gordon this season, and they will be in active line-ups starting week 1.

I think the reward starts outweighing the risk when you get to about round 12, but even there, it is only worth it if you have sufficient bench space to stash him (I would want 6 or more).

Remember, just because Josh Gordon was elite last season, does not mean he will be this year. There are a lot of question marks.

 

[wilwhite]

The federal standard is 50 ng/ml (used, for example, by the Department of Defense for active duty military personnel, by the NTSB for commercial pilots, and for employees at nuclear facilities).

Gordon tested at 16 ng/ml. His second sample (from the same batch) came in at 13.6 ng/ml.

The NFL screening limit is 15 ng/ml.

That standard was common in 2010, but after the World Anti-Doping Agency upped their limit to 150 ng/ml last year it's rising all over the place.

The NFL will probably raise it before the next CBA - they're just trying to get better HGH testing back in return.

 

[TKOSpikes]

LOL

Blount and Bell becoming close friends apparently! A friend in need's a friend indeed, a friend with weed is better!

 

[bksballer89]

Bell is my starting RB

 

[MilkSpiller22]

How is Gordon a huge risk when it is accepted to draft Carlos Hyde and Terrence west so early???

 

[SmokingMonkey]

That standard was common in 2010, but after the World Anti-Doping Agency upped their limit to 150 ng/ml last year it's rising all over the place.

I put this out there on another Gordon post, but figured it'd be a good refresher.
The WADA upped their limit all the way to 150 nano-grams against the advice of their own scientists.
Either way, 15 is outdated, especially if active duty military personnel can skate by under 50.