My original intention wasn't to troll. Trash talk a little maybe....but trash talk and trolling aren't exactly the same. It became trolling when I noticed how unnecessarily sensitive you guys are. And my mention of the Gordon thing was to ask a football question....I was genuinely curious, and more than a bit perplexed, how he received the ranking he did. Sorry if I used the wrong words in my initial questioning of the ranking....I'm used to some homerism on this site....that just popped out as a little absurd to me.
Let me explain that one to you, then... Josh Gordon has a physical profile better than every other NFL receiver. With garbage quarterback play, he led the NFL in yards in 2013. While I realize this was a while ago, he was also (by his own admission) under the influence of something(s) during this time and was still able to dominate the game. After over 1,000 days without football, a top tier cornerback in Gordon's first action called him the toughest receiver he's ever covered, comparing him to only Odell Beckham Jr. Josh will have the best quarterback play in 2018 he's ever seen in Cleveland, as well as a stronger receiver supporting cast to take some pressure off of being "the guy". By all accounts, Gordon is clean and dialed in. Had he lived up to his potential early on in his career, his trajectory would be the same as a Randy Moss or Calvin Johnson. He's still young enough, having just turned 27, and in the best shape of his life, so recapturing that 2013 form should not be a difficult. The question wasn't Who are the most productive and guaranteed receivers in the NFL - it was "who are the best". Gordon checks all those boxes and has the potential to be massively productive this season, too.
That's got to be somewhat tough... I haven't engaged him in a long time. I do know that he shows up out of the blue and quotes me, which is odd considering he's been blocked for a very long time. And they're very weird, pseudo-creepy posts like one who stalks an ex would post. There are always references to the past and personal attacks, which if done to be in real life would be troubling, but on a message board are just kinda sad.
1. Debatable. He's probably in the top five. But physical profile doesn't have anything to do with how receivers should be ranked. On field results do. 2. 2013 was 5 years ago by my count. By that logic....Peyton Manning is still the best QB in football because he had 55 touchdowns that year. 3. Awesome. Which stat column do we put that in? Does PFF keep track of opponent comments? 4. Fair enough...that doesn't explain how he is #2 RIGHT NOW though. We rank players now based on pass performance...starting with the most recent. Is that not a fair way to rank players? 5. So being able to pass a piss test makes him the #2 receiver in football? These are great reasons to say why he COULD be the #2 or even #1 receiver in football. Because there is little doubt he has the size, speed, athleticism, hands, ability, route running, physicality, and all the tools necessary to be so. No doubt. But I'm seeking reasons why he IS the #2 receiver in football. If you were to seriously rank the ten best receivers in football RIGHT NOW....there is no reason to put Gordon in there because recent results don't justify it.
Wow. It really got to this clown when I said Cleveland would be better than the Bears...lol! ^^^I think not...
Well now, that depends on if the player in question knows how to use that profile to his advantage. The last time we saw Gordon play more than 10 games, he sure as hell knew how to use it and he was the most dominating receiver in the league. *Only by your logic...Josh Gordon is playing from game 1 in 2018, which is the first time since 2013 he has done so. Manning is retired and will not be throwing a football anywhere but his back yard. We don't have a season to go off of since 2013, so doesn't a comment from a respected player hold value? RIGHT NOW, Josh Gordon is set to play his first full season since his rookie year. His most recent IS 2013, so yes, going off of his dominance, it would be realistic to have him as a #2 ranking Not in 99% of the cases, but in this one...yes, it just might. These were SAS personal rankings, not the elevation to All Pro status. These rankings represent, imho, his "COULD BE" rankings based on current situations presented. I think SAS has already given his reasons for HIS RANKINGS. You even said, you have to go off of the most recent performance, well if going off of 2013...An argument could certainly be made for his 2013 performance vs any other candidates 2017 performance...
Well now, that depends on if the player in question knows how to use that profile to his advantage. The last time we saw Gordon play more than 10 games, he sure as hell knew how to use it and he was the most dominating receiver in the league. *Only by your logic...Josh Gordon is playing from game 1 in 2018, which is the first time since 2013 he has done so. Manning is retired and will not be throwing a football anywhere but his back yard. We don't have a season to go off of since 2013, so doesn't a comment from a respected player hold value? RIGHT NOW, Josh Gordon is set to play his first full season since his rookie year. His most recent IS 2013, so yes, going off of his dominance, it would be realistic to have him as a #2 ranking Not in 99% of the cases, but in this one...yes, it just might. These were SAS personal rankings, not the elevation to All Pro status. These rankings represent, imho, his "COULD BE" rankings based on current situations presented. I think SAS has already given his reasons for HIS RANKINGS. You even said, you have to go off of the most recent performance, well if going off of 2013...An argument could certainly be made for his 2013 performance vs any other candidates 2017 performance...
Need I say more? The meme game is the one area the Browns can actually win because there are more Browns suck memes than there is porn on the internet.
I am hesitant to touch this third rail again, but... If Ben Roethlisberger gets a bad concussion in the preseason and misses extended time, Antonio Brown goes from one of the most productive receivers in the NFL to one of the worst - check his game logs without Roethlisberger. The team still wins while he averages about 4 catches, 30 yards, and no touchdowns. Not exactly what you'd expect from what many (most?) would seem to consider the "best receiver in football". Josh Gordon, again... having not played football in over 1,000 days, put up 4 catches and 67 yards per game average just last season - good enough for 64 catches and 1,072 yards over 16 games with DeShone Kizer as his quarterback. So if you want go to 100% off results, I agree... Josh Gordon is not in the Top 10. If you want to take ALL factors into consideration, I'm all ears on having a healthy debate and stand by my assertion that Gordon is #2 in the entire NFL.
5 years ago, right? We're still talking about 5 years ago? The point is using stats from 5 years ago to make a point about 2018...is dumb. Definitely holds some value, some how. It's not a legit reason to say he's the #2 receiver in football though. Unless you think it is? Because I don't. You think Josh Gordon deserves the #2 ranking? Is that what you're saying? Despite the fact that there were, what, 5 guys that caught 100 passes or more last year. 4 guys topped 1300 yards. 2 guys got double digit touchdowns. 1 guy averaged well over 100 yards a game. Despite the fact that this is a league where Antonio Brown, DeAndre Hopkins, Julio Jones, Keenan Allen, and others call home.....you think Gordon is number 2....and are using 2013 to justify that? Is that your argument? Congrats on passing the piss test. I'll call Canton and tell them to start sculpting his plaque. He didn't preface it as "could be"....he presented it as "is". Don't move the goal posts. Recent performance means last year. Last year was recent. 2013....not recent. See the difference?
I'm asking, no BEGGING, my Browns' brothers to just STOP with the ongoing engaging of trolls on the Browns threads. The only purpose it serves is to encourage them to continue. The more you engage them, the more they will troll.
Brandon Marshall in his career put up some really awesome numbers with the likes of Kyle Orton, Matt Moore, Chad Henne, and some other crap with arms throwing to him. So the QB argument...while valid....isn't everything. You're not wrong...it just shouldn't be weighted that much. Great receivers also make QBs better. Based on results...no, he's not in the #10. If we are talking potential, ability, physical assets, and so on.....I think he's definitely potentially a top 5 receiver and could perform at a level that would make him #1. Potentially. He's actually capable of being that good.
