DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Josh Gordon

j/c:


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/201...rt-on-thursday/


https://twitter.com/CLEpolice/status/781901386719997954

I'm not a fan of making decisions based on raw emotions.

Geez....

Why. Now.

Nope, because I advocated hardcore cutting him or trading him before he was even eligible for reinstatement. Acting on a proven history, well documented history of failure and issues that stems prior to his nfl career.

I believe you are overlooking some things here. When a pattern is repeated over and over again, it's a preponderance of the evidence, not an emotional decision.

Every corporation has a public image to uphold. As much as we as fans consider this a sport, the fact is this is a corporation. As such, they have to appear to be accountable and somewhat stable.

They have been very supportive and forgiving of Josh on many occasions. At some point they have to say enough is enough. You have to send a message to the public as well as your players that there are limits.

You may see this as an emotional decision. I see this as this is the straw that broke the camels back. That you can only do so much and they have done everything they can. Josh is not a victim here.

Question,

Do people look on the Jaguars poorly for having Justin Blackmons contract rights?

When I read that story I didn't come away thinking they were letting him go. I took it as what a coach says about any injured player, 'he's not here, we move on with those who are here'.

You would have to ask Jaguar fans about that.

Nah, I don't think so.

I certainly don't look down on the jags for keeping his rights. Do you look down on the jags pit?

Why? I was purposely asking for an outsiders view. Do you view the Jaguars as weak or incompetent for keeping Blackmon?

This is to both you and Candy.....

Firstly, it wasn't me who described the move as "raw emotion". That would be Candy. I never described anyone as being weak or incompetent for keeping such a player. That too was Candy. You see, he keeps interjecting things to change what was said.

My attempt was to show two sides of the coin. Rational reasoning why the Browns decided to let Josh go, if in fact that was even what was stated.

I've never called Josh meathead or tried to hang him out to dry. I could understand if they kept him and I could understand if they let him go. I really don't have a lot of concern about it one way or the other.

But this entire thing started when Candy tried to call cutting Josh based on "raw emotion". Nothing could be farther from the truth. He has shown a pattern over an extended period of time that would heavily weigh in such a decision.

Something Candy has tried to dance around and deflect by changing the conversation. He would make a great Congressman some day. lol

Pit then answer this question, what purpose does it serve to cut Gordon?

I have to echo candy's question: What does cutting Josh do for the browns?

He costs us no money. He costs us no roster spot. He costs us nothing.

His rights (playing rights) are owned by Browns. And it costs nothing. What do we gain by cutting him? Not one thing.

Image, you may say? Imagine this: cutting him doesn't improve our image. He's not a member of the team.

Cutting him doesn't improve our bank. Doesn't get us a draft pick, doesn't get us a cheeseburger.

It's on Josh himself. If he cleans up, we may have a player at some point down the road. If he doesn't clean up, we've lost nothing. And, his value to other teams is minimal at best.

If we cut him, he's still got the nfl punishment to live by, so other teams would have to live by those rules. I see no teams interested in him at this point.






Hey, other Browns players, here's an example: Josh had all the talent in the world, and he squandered it on drugs. The Browns are lifting Josh up as an example of what could happen to you, and your paycheck, if you're not thinking right.

Arch you just summed up what I've been trying to say. Thank you.

I imagine you guys aren't looking at the articles. Josh Gordon is associated to the Browns in every article because he is a Brown.

Here's another message to the team... " No matter what you do or how many times you do it, we will keep you on the team."

Except, he's not on the team. Nice try.

He's not getting paid. He's not getting squat. And everyone on the team, and every player in the nfl understands that.

There's your lesson for today.




And by the way, Josh is free to get a different job. His talent doesn't give him the right to do as he sees fit. He can walk away anytime he wants. He can sell cars, start an insurance business, work in a factory, become a spokeperson, volunteer at a homeless shelter, go back to school.

He's got options. Cutting him benefits the Browns in absolutely NO way.

j/c...

I imagine lawyers are already drafting a defamation of character lawsuit on this one. Yikes.

The OBR is officially retracting our story from earlier today.

The OBR would like to sincerely apologize to Josh Gordon and the Cleveland Browns for an incorrect story that we published earlier today.

Accuracy is the most important thing a journalist should strive for, and, for the first time in 20 years, we have made an egregious error.

Our source for the story had always been reliable, and he presented documents backing up his claim. However, we now have enough reason to doubt the veracity of our source to warrant removing the story.

We are truly and deeply sorry that we failed to conduct a thorough investigation of the claim.

(The TSA and Cleveland Police Department denied the story following its publication.)

The OBR started in 1996, and in 20 years, we have never been in this position. I would like to extend an open invitation to anyone who subscribed to The OBR based on this story to contact me directly at barrymcbride@gmail.com.

Link

Just to add on to what Arch said, here's another message: "Hey, if you want out of Cleveland and to sign with another team, just act like an idiot."

Here's a dubious stat that the Browns and Jaguars share: Both teams last had a winning season in 2007. Let's not hold up what either team does as necessarily the right thing. Maybe we should ask ourselves what a winner would do.

The above is just a general observation. As far as this specific case goes, I think it's just time to move on. Enough is enough. For a long time, I was in the "He's not costing us any money, he's not with the team, maybe he can sort things out and come back and be a great player yada yada yada" camp but the possibility that happens now is very slim.

I'd rather just move on and be done with the distraction. It's not fair to the rest of the team to have to count on a guy that has proven over and over again that he can't be counted on.

If there's a reason to hold onto him now it's this: The team would probably take a P.R. hit if they cut him just as a player voluntarily entered rehab. Wait until a more opportune time. I just can't see a situation where he stays with the team anymore. It's time to admit that those who kept harping about the Browns moving on from this guy were right all along.

No matter how you slice it, he's a Brown. He's under contract with the Cleveland Browns. As such, he will always be associated with the Browns as long as we have him under contract and control his rights.

I don't believe you would wish to control or keep an employee who didn't perform since 2013 and consistently had your business in the headlines in a negative spotlight.

For the record, I already know the airport story has been retracted. However, the Browns have yet again been put in a tough spot and I still think there is more to it than Josh just feeling like he needed to get help. Time will tell.

Adam Schefter Verified account
@AdamSchefter
Browns intend to part ways with WR Josh Gordon, per @DanGrazianoESPN.

http://es.pn/2cH9iLI

Tweet

He is not an employee of the browns. Period.

His personal life is not under the control of the browns. Period.

His nfl playing rights are controlled by the browns, yes. And he's not playing football because of HIS choices/decisions and the rules of the nfl.

He's not making the browns look bad under any light. He's making himself look bad.

Sure he is. That's why you see the Browns in every headline about Josh Gordon.

He's not being paid and who cares if he makes the Browns "look bad" to the media?

Well, since everybody has confirmed that Gordon didn't do that nonsense, there's no point in cutting him.

I guess it's just back to speculation, but now it's clear that Hue was talking about Gordon with regards to the offense.

He won't be here, at least not soon, so there's no point in talking about it until he comes back.

I like that. hue wants the team focused with the players that ARE available.

And it doesn't make the Browns look bad, in any manner.

Also Pit, instead of saying "Browns wide reciever" they will say "former Browns wide receiver." His name will be mentioned with us until another team signs him.

That's the exact take I got from Hue's statement: We're moving on. He won't be here next week. We'll go with what we have."

To be fair ... cutting Johnny Manziel hasn't exactly disassociated ourselves with him either.

Most excellent point. (is that a coincidence?)

Yup, every time I see the "cut from the browns" johnny, it's always "Ex Browns player", or Johnny in a browns uni. Does that make the team look bad pit?

If Gordon was your daily driver, you'd have bought a new vehicle awhile ago with all the breakdowns he's had. I'm sure you wouldn't take that used, pos, unreliable vehicle and store it in your garage "because it's not costing us anything" or whatever reasons people are saying. You don't keep it "because the neighbors keep all their crap used old cars in their yard" like people want to use the Jaguars/Blackmon situation. People ask, why cut him? I ask, why the Hell not and give me a valid case with someone who's been given X amount of chances and has let everyone down each and every time.

You get rid of it because you're sick and tired of it and you've invested plenty of time, effort and resources and it's gotten you nowhere. Gordon has gotten us nowhere. We have too much young talent to have a bad apple like Josh plaguing the environment.

This is a bad analogy. Gordon isn't receiving additional resources or effort from us. How is he plaguing the enviornment? Pure speculation.

Thats a fair point.

Also, if I might add, I know these guys are grown men, but do you really want to risk a dynamic player like Pryor chilling with this dude?

Or any other player for that matter? That's a point that has to be considered by the coaching staff and FO.

This isn't the 70's. If these guys want to hang out, they will hang out. They have private jets now.

And every reason people keep saying to keep his rights is a bad reason. Refer to Pit's posts, they hit the nail on the head pertaining to your question.

You need to be more specific. I must be missing something throughout the discussion I had with him.

Absolutely not...

He's a great example to use when the topic is "what not to be/do".

Are we pretending players don't smoke weed now?

Gordon just smokes weed too much.