Josh Gordon Thread: Reinstatement (Deja Vu)

[WZA]

For all you sellers, what are you willing to moving him for? Just curious.

Blackmon, Hill, Wright, any 1st round pick in 2013-2014, David Wilson. Would rather hold than deal for Floyd, Jeffrey.

Personally, I wouldn't trade Gordon for Hill or any 1st round pick. Not that high on Hill and draft picks are a crapshoot...I'd rather hold the guy I've been able to watch at the NFL level.

I don't think anyone who drafted Blackmon or David Wilson would give them up for Gordon.

Agree...Hold on Floyd and Jeffery

[WZA]

Risk is that you could have traded him right around here to make someone over pay and if he fades then you missed an opportunity to gain some value.

I think the bigger risk is trading him for less than he's gonna be worth in the future. I've said it before and I'll say it again...I think the kid will be a very solid weekly producer for your fantasy team in the future. Maybe not this year, but 2013-2014. I'm not claiming he's the next Calvin, but I think he will be a very solid contributor.

[TheOracle]

For all you sellers, what are you willing to moving him for? Just curious.

Blackmon, Hill, Wright, any 1st round pick in 2013-2014, David Wilson. Would rather hold than deal for Floyd, Jeffrey.

Personally, I wouldn't trade Gordon for Hill or any 1st round pick. Not that high on Hill and draft picks are a crapshoot...I'd rather hold the guy I've been able to watch at the NFL level.

I don't think anyone who drafted Blackmon or Davis Wilson would give them up for Gordon.

Agree...Hold on Floyd and Jeffery

I'm very high on Hill. I think at the NFL level Hill has been more impressive, he has better measurables, and he's not a headcase. We're comparing two raw, athletics receivers, so I'm going to take the more athletic one every time. I'm not sure what Gordon does that Hill doesn't do better.

[lukeb]

For all you sellers, what are you willing to moving him for? Just curious.

Blackmon, Hill, Wright, any 1st round pick in 2013-2014, David Wilson. Would rather hold than deal for Floyd, Jeffrey.

I honestly don't know if I would trade Gordon for any of those guys. Despite being very young and out of football a year, he has been the best rookie WR this year (IMO of course). I might consider trading him for Wilson depending on team need, etc.

[WZA]

Blackmon, Hill, Wright, any 1st round pick in 2013-2014, David Wilson. Would rather hold than deal for Floyd, Jeffrey.

Personally, I wouldn't trade Gordon for Hill or any 1st round pick. Not that high on Hill and draft picks are a crapshoot...I'd rather hold the guy I've been able to watch at the NFL level.

I don't think anyone who drafted Blackmon or Davis Wilson would give them up for Gordon.

Agree...Hold on Floyd and Jeffery

I'm very high on Hill. I think at the NFL level Hill has been more impressive, he has better measurables, and he's not a headcase. We're comparing two raw, athletics receivers, so I'm going to take the more athletic one every time. I'm not sure what Gordon does that Hill doesn't do better.

Stay healthy

[Chris_R]

Why would you want to trade him for a future 1st? So you can draft another WR and hope he ends up just like Gordon? And be back in the exact same situation except further behind in development. I like picks and all, but I've never understood trading a guy like Gordon for a future 1st to re-do the same thing all over again. Especially after seeing him play. As for any other WR, it depends on who you liked more. Jeffrey or Hill I can see if you had them rated higher, plus they have looked good.


I understand your cashing in on what was most likely a waiver wire pick-up, but it's a lateral move IMO that you also lose likely production from this year and probably next all to do the same thing.

[WZA]

Why would you want to trade him for a future 1st? So you can draft another WR and hope he ends up just like Gordon? And be back in the exact same situation except further behind in development. I like picks and all, but I've never understood trading a guy like Gordon for a future 1st to re-do the same thing all over again. Especially after seeing him play. As for any other WR, it depends on who you liked more. Jeffrey or Hill I can see if you had them rated higher, plus they have looked good.


I understand your cashing in on what was most likely a waiver wire pick-up, but it's a lateral move IMO that you also lose likely production from this year and probably next all to do the same thing.

I think this pretty much sums it up. Well said.

[balaberda]

I would not trade him for a pick but use him as a lottery ticket in a trade. Including him as a WR in a trade to go after an Elite WR gives the guy making the trade hope that he can replace his stud WR with Gordon some day.

[TheOracle]

Why would you want to trade him for a future 1st? So you can draft another WR and hope he ends up just like Gordon? And be back in the exact same situation except further behind in development. I like picks and all, but I've never understood trading a guy like Gordon for a future 1st to re-do the same thing all over again. Especially after seeing him play. As for any other WR, it depends on who you liked more. Jeffrey or Hill I can see if you had them rated higher, plus they have looked good.


I understand your cashing in on what was most likely a waiver wire pick-up, but it's a lateral move IMO that you also lose likely production from this year and probably next all to do the same thing.

Because on average I think the first round picks are better football players than Gordon. Of the 12 guys who went in the first round of my pure rookie draft, there are 8 that I definitely value more than Gordon (RG3, T-Rich, Luck, Blackmon, Martin, Wilson,Wright, Hill) Two that I think are a toss-up (Floyd, Jeffrey) and two that I like less than Gordon (Fleener, Hillman). I'm probably exaggerating with "any first round pick" because I'd probably ask for a bit more from a juggernaut of a team, but I think the percentages indicate that Gordon is less value than a 1st.

WZA- I don't think Stephen Hill has significant health concerns.

[WZA]

WZA- I don't think Stephen Hill has significant health concerns.

That's a fair statement. He's missed a couple games and I'm unfairly labeling him as injury-prone. I'll retract that statement.

Obviously it's personal preference, but I like Gordon more than Hill.

[Chris_R]

Why would you want to trade him for a future 1st? So you can draft another WR and hope he ends up just like Gordon? And be back in the exact same situation except further behind in development. I like picks and all, but I've never understood trading a guy like Gordon for a future 1st to re-do the same thing all over again. Especially after seeing him play. As for any other WR, it depends on who you liked more. Jeffrey or Hill I can see if you had them rated higher, plus they have looked good.


I understand your cashing in on what was most likely a waiver wire pick-up, but it's a lateral move IMO that you also lose likely production from this year and probably next all to do the same thing.

Because on average I think the first round picks are better football players than Gordon. Of the 12 guys who went in the first round of my pure rookie draft, there are 8 that I definitely value more than Gordon (RG3, T-Rich, Luck, Blackmon, Martin, Wilson,Wright, Hill) Two that I think are a toss-up (Floyd, Jeffrey) and two that I like less than Gordon (Fleener, Hillman). I'm probably exaggerating with "any first round pick" because I'd probably ask for a bit more from a juggernaut of a team, but I think the percentages indicate that Gordon is less value than a 1st.

WZA- I don't think Stephen Hill has significant health concerns.

Yea but why rank rookies this year? You said a future 1st round pick. Which means you lose any production this year since you have the pick, then next year if you end up taking a WR again, you may not have production that year either with him being a rookie. Even looking at the list this year, I only see 4 clearly ahead of Gordon, guys like Martin, Wilson, Wright, and Hill are toss-ups and at worse probably considered a wash. Gordon is playing extremely well for a guy who hasn't played football in a long time.


What is the difference with Gordon, and any other rookie WR that comes out with a bunch of hype and then looks good in the games? For instance I took David Wilson in the 1st in a few leagues this year, and he looks good to me in limited time. So I don't see what I would get out of moving him for a future 1st, to look for another RB to draft and do it all over again. At worse Gordon looks like he can at least play at this level, to just toss that away for another flier that could easily end up a complete bust I just don't see it I guess. For some reason people still view Gordon as some undrafted scrap heap WR who just has a little buzz. He's a big time physical talent and his teams #1 WR, instead of valuing him for what he is and could be people still want to look at it like cashing in on a waiver claim.

[ericanadian]

The Brown's management is being replaced, which means Shurmur is done, which means Weeden is almost certainly done as well. That's not a situation I want a piece of.

So if your rationale is not wanting a piece of a team is that they might be undergoing a QB change, doesn't that also eliminate such teams as ARZ, KC, JAX (off top of head)?

Not really. My issue is that Weeden will continue to start for a couple years, but will struggle learning a new system and offer questionable production over that period. This would eliminate receivers from teams like St. Louis. Arizona, KC & Jax should address their QB situation by next year and provide a ample opportunity for a youmg receiver like Blackmon, Floyd or Baldwin. I just see next year being much like this year for Gordon and the following year not being much better followed by a new QB and then who knows?

[NJKV]

The Brown's management is being replaced, which means Shurmur is done, which means Weeden is almost certainly done as well. That's not a situation I want a piece of.

So if your rationale is not wanting a piece of a team is that they might be undergoing a QB change, doesn't that also eliminate such teams as ARZ, KC, JAX (off top of head)?

Not really. My issue is that Weeden will continue to start for a couple years, but will struggle learning a new system and offer questionable production over that period. This would eliminate receivers from teams like St. Louis. Arizona, KC & Jax should address their QB situation by next year and provide a ample opportunity for a youmg receiver like Blackmon, Floyd or Baldwin. I just see next year being much like this year for Gordon and the following year not being much better followed by a new QB and then who knows?

I think it depends on if Weedon was a desperation attempt by Holgrem to keep his job. They aren't really moving out of the West Coast tree by bringing Joe Banner in. I actually haven't heard that Tom Heckert is getting pushed out.

This means even if Shurmur is let go at the end of the year, the terminology in the offense shouldn't change much. Maybe they bring in Andy Reid if the Eagles let him go?

[lukeb]

The Brown's management is being replaced, which means Shurmur is done, which means Weeden is almost certainly done as well. That's not a situation I want a piece of.

So if your rationale is not wanting a piece of a team is that they might be undergoing a QB change, doesn't that also eliminate such teams as ARZ, KC, JAX (off top of head)?

Not really. My issue is that Weeden will continue to start for a couple years, but will struggle learning a new system and offer questionable production over that period. This would eliminate receivers from teams like St. Louis. Arizona, KC & Jax should address their QB situation by next year and provide a ample opportunity for a youmg receiver like Blackmon, Floyd or Baldwin. I just see next year being much like this year for Gordon and the following year not being much better followed by a new QB and then who knows?

I'm not positive this is true. As you said earlier, Browns management is being replaced. I see two results relating to QB: Either the new management puts its stamp on franchise and drafts a QB first round (Geno Smith anyone?) or they stick with Weeden for the foreseeable future(more than 3 years out). I don't see a real scenario where they ride Weeden for 3 years and then dump him. Now, Weeden is older, but so far he's been a gunslinger, and is racking up passing yards (on pace for over 4K). Someone has to catch balls, and I'll give you a hint: it's not Little.

[Chris_R]

The Browns management being replaced is excellent news for guys like Richardson and Gordon. That means some changes are actually going to take place and maybe some proper drafting. Just like it was great news for skill position players in Oakland when new ownership came to town. We don't know if Weeden will start a few more years or not. He's almost 30 years old and has no ties to the new Head Coach who will be there or the GM, the Browns will be picking top 5 and it's almost a lock, so they can easily get a franchise signal caller their who raises the stock of everyone on the team.


I think it's too soon to play the 'doom and gloom' for Cleveland because we just don't know how it'll play out. I do know that Weeden isn't guaranteed to play anything more then this season, it's not like he's going to make them pass up the chance to take another QB either.