Jump to content

Kansas City Chiefs releasing WR Josh Gordon, source says


TuscanyTile2
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've wanted us to try and acquire him since there was the tiniest of glimmer of hope. I don't care if he's a pot head. I don't care if he's a dinosaur. Sign this beast. Would've been better if a stud like Streveler was tossing him the ball, but I guess we can have Flacco throw a 120 mph fastball 8 feet over his head. Nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, pointman said:

I've wanted us to try and acquire him since there was the tiniest of glimmer of hope. I don't care if he's a pot head. I don't care if he's a dinosaur. Sign this beast. Would've been better if a stud like Streveler was tossing him the ball, but I guess we can have Flacco throw a 120 mph fastball 8 feet over his head. Nice.

The problem with Gordon isn't the weed.  He had 7 starts last year and he never got more than 11 yards in a game.  With Mahomes throwing the ball.  The last time he had a hundred yard game was with Brady in New England in 2018.  He is 31 years old and I don't expect a resurgence.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

The problem with Gordon isn't the weed.  He had 7 starts last year and he never got more than 11 yards in a game.  With Mahomes throwing the ball.  The last time he had a hundred yard game was with Brady in New England in 2018.  He is 31 years old and I don't expect a resurgence.

I don't care! I want!! Line him up outside. He can be the big man that Mims will never be.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gordon was a good citizen in KC...but he isn't what he was as a football player.  No longer able to separate and compound that with the guy just drops too many balls.....negating his value as a big red zone type target.  

Maybe some team shallow at WR and wanting to try him out as something of a bottom of depth chart guy, might give him a shot, but he's done.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, #27TheDominator said:

 

Right, but none of this has much relationship to the reasons why the penalties end up being higher for things like drug use or credit card delinquency than the kind of things that seem so horrible - like Watson.  One has a very simple bar of proof.  A failed drug test.  An unpaid dredit card statement.  The other involves testimony from people who may or may not give a damn about the outcome.

If you're talking about changing the laws maybe the little guy doesn't have much chance, though I would argue they have done pretty well on that score.  I was talking about the NFLPA which has the ability to negotiate these kinds of penalties and kept it on the back burner. 

 

but if you are getting eny penalties at all (nfl or in the courts) then i'll assume you've been found to be guilty since not-guilty comes with zero penalties. so that wouldn't really explain the issue here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, neckdemon said:

but if you are getting eny penalties at all (nfl or in the courts) then i'll assume you've been found to be guilty since not-guilty comes with zero penalties. so that wouldn't really explain the issue here

I guess I should not bother, but it isn't that simple.  I am not trying to change your mind or say that it is right, but...

Labor law is not really "the courts."   The burden of proof is generally more likely than not or 51%.  For instance, Watson was not even indicted, let alone convicted, but he can still quite easily punished by his "employer."   There is a lot of wiggle room between 51% and most people's perception of "reasonable doubt."  Most of that will fit in under the factors that call for mitigation of the penalty.

If we just determine guilt/innocence and then go to penalty independent of the facts you can get some of the most  unfair penalties, but that is a whole nother discussion.  For an employer an employee being unable to follow a simple, even if unfair, rule might be more important than actual criminal misconduct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, jgb said:

another manifestation of the disease

Joe W a couple weeks ago:  "Our QB is 100 % out with an ACL tear and the season is over."

You, me and a bunch of others:  "Meh.  If he is done, let's see how the rest of the roster looks."

 

**** 2 weeks later ****

 

Joe W:  "YOU'RE ALL DISEASED"

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Titan24 said:

Who cares he’s getting old and a non story…..a tale  of such wasted talent.  Many on this board filled with intellectuals may be in the same boat.

This.  By a landslide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, #27TheDominator said:

I guess I should not bother, but it isn't that simple.  I am not trying to change your mind or say that it is right, but...

Labor law is not really "the courts."   The burden of proof is generally more likely than not or 51%.  For instance, Watson was not even indicted, let alone convicted, but he can still quite easily punished by his "employer."   There is a lot of wiggle room between 51% and most people's perception of "reasonable doubt."  Most of that will fit in under the factors that call for mitigation of the penalty.

If we just determine guilt/innocence and then go to penalty independent of the facts you can get some of the most  unfair penalties, but that is a whole nother discussion.  For an employer an employee being unable to follow a simple, even if unfair, rule might be more important than actual criminal misconduct.

No matter what the burden of proof is....if you are being penalized it's been met right (if not then wtf are we even using any standard for)? More likely than not or beyond a reasonable doubt. Whatever the standard being used it's been met if you are being penalized. As of now we are already getting unfair penalties. The offense that you ate guilty of should matter. Smoking weed having a more harsh penalty than a sequel assault is ridiculous and no amount of trying to rationalize it is going to change that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/30/2022 at 7:16 PM, Zerovoltz said:

Gordon was a good citizen in KC...but he isn't what he was as a football player.  No longer able to separate and compound that with the guy just drops too many balls.....negating his value as a big red zone type target.  

Maybe some team shallow at WR and wanting to try him out as something of a bottom of depth chart guy, might give him a shot, but he's done.  

Gordon has been a good citizen everywhere.  His crime is he likes to drink and smoke weed- both victimless crimes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, jgb said:

Video gaming addiction derails more careers these days then weed “addiction.”

Not my cup of tea but moderation in all things and they can rarely hurt you…

I don’t necessarily agree but I did know a guy with a 160 IQ who was in college for 10 years and could never hold a job who had that addiction 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Dwight Englewood said:

I don’t necessarily agree but I did know a guy with a 160 IQ who was in college for 10 years and could never hold a job who had that addiction 

I also know a guy who couldn't couldn't hold a job because he was addicted to watching "Goodfellas" 8 times a day.

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.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...