Josh Gordon Thread: Reinstatement (Deja Vu)

[WZA]

I should stay out of this one. On the last Josh Gordon thread I got blasted for saying he has WR1 upside. Which I still believe.

Since Week 5, he is WR20 in PPG in my standard PPR league. This is as a 21 year old, having not played football in a year, jumping right to the NFL, and with a rookie QB. I DEFINITELY believe that he has WR1 upside.

Where were you on the other thread!?!?! Could have used the support!

[Risky bidness]

I should stay out of this one. On the last Josh Gordon thread I got blasted for saying he has WR1 upside. Which I still believe.

Since Week 5, he is WR20 in PPG in my standard PPR league. This is as a 21 year old, having not played football in a year, jumping right to the NFL, and with a rookie QB. I DEFINITELY believe that he has WR1 upside.

Where were you on the other thread!?!?! Could have used the support!

I'm a Gordon believer. He's #2 in pts scored vs all rookie WRs in my 1/2 PPR league and 40th overall at WR. He's got a fairly high ceiling IMO. I wouldn't be surprised to see him around 20ish next year with a shot to be a bit higher depending if he gets better going into next year. Along with refining his routes I'd love to see the browns work with him in around the end zone. I love his potential to be a high TD producer.

[TheOracle]

I should stay out of this one. On the last Josh Gordon thread I got blasted for saying he has WR1 upside. Which I still believe.

The point was that the way you were referring to him as having WR upside is also applicable to about 30 other WRs. If that many WRs have "WR1" upside what's the use of the term? How can anybody who evaluates fantasy football players put Josh Gordon into the same "tier" as Calvin, Green, Julio, Harvin, Nicks, Thomas etc.? If you want your WR1 upside tier to include everybody from Stephen Hill to Golden Tate that's fine, but I don't find that particularly useful. There are tons of WRs who have the upside of being a WR1 in one year, but I don't think there's a realistic scenario where Gordon is a WR1 year in and year out, or on average over a five year period.

[Ravens4life20]

The Browns are looking like a tougher team every week. I think next year they could be a solid team with Little starting to take things seriously and is playing the "Boldin" role...and honestly you would have to be blind imo to not see Gordon has potential over a guy like Golden Tate. Gordon is only 21 and is deceptively fast and goes up to get a ball with his above average hands. WIth the defense focusing on TRich(or they'll get burned) guys like Gordon and Benjamin run the intermediate and deep routes with Gordon being the red zone favorite clearly. Jordan Cameron will also be a force next year...lots of young talent, with their oldish QB but the guy is not afraid to go deep, which is something the Browns haven't done in a long time...the kid will get better, or the new coaching staff will find someone better yet

[balaberda]

I said he would be a bust. Obviously that doesn't look good now but I will still hold with my viewpoint for a while longer before I cave.

I figured his 3 game blowup with just fluke and he has made strides.

[lukeb]

I said he would be a bust. Obviously that doesn't look good now but I will still hold with my viewpoint for a while longer before I cave.

I figured his 3 game blowup with just fluke and he has made strides.

I was digging through some old posts of Gordon and at the beginning, you actually liked him and supported him. What made you change your mind into thinking he'll be a bust?

[balaberda]

Well I had rookie fever when the supplemental draft happened so he was a name I picked out of the supplemental.

I liked him to come out of the supplemental as the guy and like him as a second round pick for WR3 upside. I liked his situation with Little struggling to separate but I still thought his ceiling was WR3. A guy to start in desperation. People view him as much more and I have heard Nicks comparisons already.

I agree he is improving and looks impressive but just didn't see long term upside there. Obviously my mind is changing though.

[Chris_R]

I should stay out of this one. On the last Josh Gordon thread I got blasted for saying he has WR1 upside. Which I still believe.

The point was that the way you were referring to him as having WR upside is also applicable to about 30 other WRs. If that many WRs have "WR1" upside what's the use of the term? How can anybody who evaluates fantasy football players put Josh Gordon into the same "tier" as Calvin, Green, Julio, Harvin, Nicks, Thomas etc.? If you want your WR1 upside tier to include everybody from Stephen Hill to Golden Tate that's fine, but I don't find that particularly useful. There are tons of WRs who have the upside of being a WR1 in one year, but I don't think there's a realistic scenario where Gordon is a WR1 year in and year out, or on average over a five year period.

You wouldn't be able to tell that right now anyway but he has the upside to be that type of talent and that's all people were saying before. He's got a ceiling that Golden Tate isn't even close to having, I'm not sure how you don't understand that or why you would mention a guy like him. There is nothing physically that seperates Gordon from a guy like Dez other then experience, and it took Dez 3 years to develop into a WR1. Yet what did you hear leading up to that point? That he had the potential to do so. That doesn't mean he that he will, but he's got the skills to be a Demryius Thomas/Dez/Nicks type of talent at the position, same thing people argued about Britt which he showed briefly he could be.


I'm certainly not expecting it, but he's a rare talent at the position, he just didn't get a chance to have the full off-season to prove it. He was compared to Randy Moss by NFL execs and people laughed it off of course, but I don't think it was a coincidence he got such a lofty comparison:

One NFL executive told ESPN's Adam Schefter that Browns supplemental rookie Josh Gordon possesses "Randy Moss-like talents."
Another called Gordon a "faster Brandon Marshall." Schefter acknowledges "major questions" about Gordon's maturity, determination, and decision making. The NFL clearly was high on Gordon's on-field ability, even if the Moss and Marshall comparisons are over the top. The Browns believe they've formed their three-wide set of the future with Gordon, Greg Little, and Travis Benjamin. Jul. 18 - 3:07 pm et

So yea, I'd say it's safe to say when you have those types of measurables, elite tools, and lofty comparisons, that it's not out of the question to say he can be a WR1. Out of curiousity, what do you think the best comparison was for Golden Tate at the pro level?

[TheOracle]

Gordon is 6'3" and ran a 4.52. There's nothing bad about that, but comparing him to Randy Moss is stupid at best. His measurables are also a lot closer to Brian Quick and Rueben Randle than they are to those of Stephen Hill or Julio Jones.

As for Golden Tate, of course Gordon has the higher ceiling. The point is that Tate could conceivably have an outlier year and be a WR1, and I was trying to demonstrate that it's not useful for analysis purposes to say somebody has WR1 upside if the term applies to guys who just have a non-zero chance of being a WR1 for a year. I picked Tate specifically because he has four more fantasy points than Gordon this year. As for the comparison to Dez, they have similar measureables, but Dez Bryant was also one of the most decorated and productive college WRs ever and plays with a much better QB.

Here's my point: Calvin, Green, Julio, Harvin, Nicks, Cruz, Marshall, Thomas, Bryant, and Cobb are all well under 30, and all have significantly better fantasy prospects than Gordon. I'd also take Wallace, Nelson, T. Smith, and we haven't even mentioned the WRs in his draft class. When you consider how many other talented guys there are, you have to start imagining some pretty crazy stuff for Gordon to be a true WR1. I don't even mean this as a pure knock on his talent as a WR, but his team also just invested a first round pick in a QB who's bad right now and probably won't get any better. If Gordon was in New England then this would make more sense, but right now I think the list of things that would have to happen for Gordon to be a WR1 for a significant stretch is so long that saying he has WR1 upside renders the term useless for evaluation purposes.

[Chris_R]

Gordon is 6'3" and ran a 4.52. There's nothing bad about that, but comparing him to Randy Moss is stupid at best. His measurables are also a lot closer to Brian Quick and Rueben Randle than they are to those of Stephen Hill or Julio Jones.

As for Golden Tate, of course Gordon has the higher ceiling. The point is that Tate could conceivably have an outlier year and be a WR1, and I was trying to demonstrate that it's not useful for analysis purposes to say somebody has WR1 upside if the term applies to guys who just have a non-zero chance of being a WR1 for a year. I picked Tate specifically because he has four more fantasy points than Gordon this year. As for the comparison to Dez, they have similar measureables, but Dez Bryant was also one of the most decorated and productive college WRs ever and plays with a much better QB.

Here's my point: Calvin, Green, Julio, Harvin, Nicks, Cruz, Marshall, Thomas, Bryant, and Cobb are all well under 30, and all have significantly better fantasy prospects than Gordon. I'd also take Wallace, Nelson, T. Smith, and we haven't even mentioned the WRs in his draft class. When you consider how many other talented guys there are, you have to start imagining some pretty crazy stuff for Gordon to be a true WR1. I don't even mean this as a pure knock on his talent as a WR, but his team also just invested a first round pick in a QB who's bad right now and probably won't get any better. If Gordon was in New England then this would make more sense, but right now I think the list of things that would have to happen for Gordon to be a WR1 for a significant stretch is so long that saying he has WR1 upside renders the term useless for evaluation purposes.

Well you choose to live and die by that recorded 40 time which is fine, I on the other hand realize how long he was out of football, and the quick turnaround he had to do to start training for the draft and his 40 time. Your not taking into consideration that the guy was hardly in football shape, and didn't nearly have the same amount of time to train for his 40. Even with all that said, a 4.52 is extremely fast for a guy his size if that was his actual time. Brandon Marshall and Dez fly by people with ease and they are mid 4.5 guys, you don't have to be a 4.3 to be considered an elite talent. I just don't understand your rationale, according to you, there is literally no chance any new WR can be a WR1 because of all the guys you listed are under 30, so there won't be any new breakthroughs unless they go to NE or GB.


If you look at some of the past weeks Gordon has had, he's outscored some of the guys you listed already this year. With Weeden, as a rookie. It's not as big of a leap of faith as you think it is.

[Bronx Bomber]

I should stay out of this one. On the last Josh Gordon thread I got blasted for saying he has WR1 upside. Which I still believe.

The point was that the way you were referring to him as having WR upside is also applicable to about 30 other WRs. If that many WRs have "WR1" upside what's the use of the term? How can anybody who evaluates fantasy football players put Josh Gordon into the same "tier" as Calvin, Green, Julio, Harvin, Nicks, Thomas etc.? If you want your WR1 upside tier to include everybody from Stephen Hill to Golden Tate that's fine, but I don't find that particularly useful. There are tons of WRs who have the upside of being a WR1 in one year, but I don't think there's a realistic scenario where Gordon is a WR1 year in and year out, or on average over a five year period.

I get what WZA is saying. To me a WR1 for my squad means I can plug him in every week and not think about it. I think Gordon has that potential. I don't know why we still refer to WR1 as just the top 10, 12, etc. There are probably at least 20 guys now that I'd feel comfortable calling a WR1 for my team, and maybe 5 or 10 more that have that potential. I do think that that's different than what Value we put on those guys. It can be both...

[NJKV]

I should stay out of this one. On the last Josh Gordon thread I got blasted for saying he has WR1 upside. Which I still believe.

The point was that the way you were referring to him as having WR upside is also applicable to about 30 other WRs. If that many WRs have "WR1" upside what's the use of the term? How can anybody who evaluates fantasy football players put Josh Gordon into the same "tier" as Calvin, Green, Julio, Harvin, Nicks, Thomas etc.? If you want your WR1 upside tier to include everybody from Stephen Hill to Golden Tate that's fine, but I don't find that particularly useful. There are tons of WRs who have the upside of being a WR1 in one year, but I don't think there's a realistic scenario where Gordon is a WR1 year in and year out, or on average over a five year period.

I get what WZA is saying. To me a WR1 for my squad means I can plug him in every week and not think about it. I think Gordon has that potential. I don't know why we still refer to WR1 as just the top 10, 12, etc. There are probably at least 20 guys now that I'd feel comfortable calling a WR1 for my team, and maybe 5 or 10 more that have that potential. I do think that that's different than what Value we put on those guys. It can be both...

I agree with this. I think we put an arbitrary line in the sand about what QB1/RB1/WR1 is. That is why I personally tier players. So to answer the question if I have Gordon in the same tier as Calvin, the answer is no but I don't have Nicks in that tier either.

[TheOracle]

I agree with this. I think we put an arbitrary line in the sand about what QB1/RB1/WR1 is. That is why I personally tier players. So to answer the question if I have Gordon in the same tier as Calvin, the answer is no but I don't have Nicks in that tier either.

It's not that arbitrary; the line is based on the average number of teams in a league. 12 teams in a league, so your top 12 RBs will, just based on pigeonholing, be the #1 RB on their team, hence RB1. If you want to use a different definition that's fine, but that's typically not how the term is applied here and not how it was intended in the original post.

[spillertime]

I agree with this. I think we put an arbitrary line in the sand about what QB1/RB1/WR1 is. That is why I personally tier players. So to answer the question if I have Gordon in the same tier as Calvin, the answer is no but I don't have Nicks in that tier either.

It's not that arbitrary; the line is based on the average number of teams in a league. 12 teams in a league, so your top 12 RBs will, just based on pigeonholing, be the #1 RB on their team, hence RB1. If you want to use a different definition that's fine, but that's typically not how the term is applied here and not how it was intended in the original post.

I think it's much easier to rate the RBs as RB1, RB2 and so on because their production is much more consistent but the WR's are all over the place from year to year. I think what he was saying is that there are about 20 WR's who can be a WR1 (or top 12 WR) in any given year. Gordon is not yet to that point, but I think he can be eventually. So I don't know what you want to call that classification. I think it should just be labeled 2nd tier. Calvin and AJG are the only certified "WR1s" as of right now.

After that you got (in no particular order) Demaryius, Cruz, Nicks, Julio, Cobb, Nelson, Colston, Vincent, Roddy, Andre, Stevie, Bowe, Fitz, Marshall, Steve Smith, Percy, Wallace, Dez, Austin, Welker, Decker, Wayne, Torrey. That's over 20 guys who can finish as a WR1 in any given year. People value all these guys differently but in all honestly they are in about the same category. So yes, there can be 20 WR1's if you want to put the line at the number of teams in the league.

**to add - this is a dumb argument

[TheOracle]

Agreed on the dumb argument part.