The Josh Gordon Thread: Pats Officially Acquire Gordon for Fifth-Round Pick

[ViperGTS]

So, what are the odds he makes it to meetings tomorrow?

 

[DaBruinz]

You may not agree with my opinion or care for my examples, but I can assure you that you’re quite wrong about your last statement.

And for the record, I responded to another poster who was talking about how intelligent Josh Gordon is, whom I respectfully disagree with. And stop with the “unmanageable disease” idea for those who have previously addressed their drinking or drug problems. You’re making them all look weak and pathetic. There are plenty of people who have taken the advice of counseling, daily meetings, and psychiatric medications and used that to live a successful life.

My last statement was that "The lack of self-control because of the disease is what is the hardest to overcome". You think that's wrong? Really? So if the lack of self-control isn't the hardest thing for someone with addiction to over-come, just what is?

And yes, I know you were responding claiming about how "intelligent Josh Gordon is" and I stand by my statement that addiction has ZERO to do with intelligence and everything to do with willpower, determination, and self-control.

Where did I say that addiction was "an unmanageable disease"? Please show me. OH. You can't because I didn't say that or even remotely imply it. What I said was that you don't seem to understand how it can completely control your life regardless of the "once in a life time chance". That isn't saying it's unmanageable in any reality.

And while there are many who have taken the advice of counseling, daily meetings, medications to go on a lead a successful life, there are just as many who haven't. From all walks of life. From the rich to the poor.

 

[supafly]

"I'd suggest referring to those with addiction as "people with addiction", in lieu of calling them addicts."

you'll outlive me at this point but pardon my stubbornness ...I'll keep calling them addicts...just like I'll keep calling ***holes ***holes, instead of anal cavity openings...

I suppose I understand where he’s coming from and I certainly don’t mind showing more respect to those going through struggles, so the message was received. He’s right that it should be remembered that there is a human being behind the disease, but I know a lot of recovering addicts/alcoholics and I’ll be damned if any of them are thin-skinned enough to give a rat’s ass what you call them. As a matter of fact, that’s exactly how they introduce themselves at the AA/NA meetings. “I’m Michelle, and I’m an addict,” or “I’m an addict named Pete.”

If someone is going to have the balls to succeed in their fight against drugs and alcohol, they’re going to need to have a tough and gritty approach to it, and that’s putting it mildly.

 

[catent]

In acknowledging the difficulty, you must also acknowledge the success of those who have done some pretty simple steps to overcome it, so there’s a middle ground that is not being seen with comments like his. No one is downplaying the struggle of overcoming drinking ailments or drugging ailments. They have been around forever, and some succeed while others fail, but the suggestion that no one has control over anything for the rest of their lives is a peculiar one, at least in my opinion. Nothing that Gordon has done suggests intelligence.

Also, DaBruinz is pretty much doing what he’s known for, which is coming into a respectful debate guns blazing, name calling, and making incorrect assumptions. That’s kind of his thing, so when someone calls him out on it in the future, you’ll know. His last statement is not opinionated. It’s factually incorrect.

I wouldn't say it's a middle ground, rather it goes to show that everyone's struggles are unique. Some have it harder than others. Certainly Bruinz didn't suggest that "no one has control over anything for the rest of their lives" based on what I read from him. I'm arguing that the degree of control varies from person to person.

Watch Gordon's rehab video. That to me suggests intelligence.

And fwiw, to call Bruinz's last statement "factually incorrect" is lacking in perspective. His statement is not representative of everyone but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Again, everyone who deals with these issues has their own unique experience.

If someone is going to have the balls to succeed in their fight against drugs and alcohol, they’re going to need to have a tough and gritty approach to it, and that’s putting it mildly.

Again, people have varying degrees of difficulties and each person has different experiences and approaches to addiction. For some, a tough-minded approach may be necessary. For others that may not be the case.

 

[DaBruinz]

In acknowledging the difficulty, you must also acknowledge the success of those who have done some pretty simple steps to overcome it, so there’s a middle ground that is not being seen with comments like his. No one is downplaying the struggle of overcoming drinking ailments or drugging ailments. They have been around forever, and some succeed while others fail, but the suggestion that no one has control over anything for the rest of their lives is a peculiar one, at least in my opinion. Nothing that Gordon has done suggests intelligence.

Also, DaBruinz is pretty much doing what he’s known for, which is coming into a respectful debate guns blazing, name calling, and making incorrect assumptions. That’s kind of his thing, so when someone calls him out on it in the future, you’ll know. His last statement is not opinionated. It’s factually incorrect.

WOW. You are completely making things up. First of all, i didn't name call. Nor did I come in "guns blazing' nor were any of my assumptions incorrect.

The claim by you that my last statement was "factually incorrect" is your opinion. It's not fact.

 

[supafly]

My last statement was that "The lack of self-control because of the disease is what is the hardest to overcome".

And while there are many who have taken the advice of counseling, daily meetings, medications to go on a lead a successful life, there are just as many who haven't. From all walks of life. From the rich to the poor.

The last sentence that I quoted is what I was referring to, but I don’t have any idea what your second paragraph is stating here. Either way, we’re not going to agree on this one, so maybe we should avoid any unnecessary back and forths.

 

[supafly]

I wouldn't say it's a middle ground, rather it goes to show that everyone's struggles are unique. Some have it harder than others. Certainly Bruinz didn't suggest that "no one has control over anything for the rest of their lives" based on what I read from him. I'm arguing that the degree of control varies from person to person.

Watch Gordon's rehab video. That to me suggests intelligence.

And fwiw, to call Bruinz's last statement "factually incorrect" is lacking in perspective. His statement is not representative of everyone but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Again, everyone who deals with these issues has their own unique experience.

The statement that is factually incorrect is the one that I quoted suggesting that I personally, don’t know what the disease of addiction represents. Again, you may disagree with my opinion, but you can’t attempt to make the assumption that I am not both classroom and street educated on the matter.

His statement was most certainly incorrect.

 

[catent]

"I'd suggest referring to those with addiction as "people with addiction", in lieu of calling them addicts."

you'll outlive me at this point but pardon my stubbornness ...I'll keep calling them addicts...just like I'll keep calling ***holes ***holes, instead of anal cavity openings...

It's a generational thing, I get it, and I've certainly used the term "addict" before.

The only point I'm making is that there is a human being with other traits and experiences, good and bad, behind the addiction.

In my opinion, calling someone an "addict" ignores everything else about that individual and makes that person's identity one of addiction, and nothing else. I realize that's not your intention, just wanted to share my thoughts.

I personally wouldn't be too upset about being called an addict but I wouldn't assume the same of everyone else.

 

[supafly]

It's a generational thing, I get it, and I've certainly used the term "addict" before.

The only point I'm making is that there is a human being with other traits and experiences, good and bad, behind the addiction.

In my opinion, calling someone an "addict" ignores everything else about that individual and makes that person's identity one of addiction, and nothing else. I realize that's not your intention, just wanted to share my thoughts.

I personally wouldn't be too upset about being called an addict but I wouldn't assume the same of everyone else.

Just curious as to why everyone addresses themselves as such at AA/NA meetings, if it’s a generational thing?

Are you practicing some type of newfangled millennial recovery or something?

 

[catent]

The statement that is factually incorrect is the one that I quoted suggesting that I personally, don’t know what the disease of addiction represents. Again, you may disagree with my opinion, but you can’t attempt to make the assumption that I am not both classroom and street educated on the matter.

His statement was most certainly incorrect.

Then we were on completely different pages. I didn't realize that was the statement you were referring to. Simple misunderstanding.

 

[catent]

Just curious as to why everyone addresses themselves as such at AA/NA meetings?

I've never attended an AA/NA meeting, nor have I spoken with any of these people you're referring to, so I can't speak to that.

I've made it clear how I feel about the term and its implications. I can't speak for others.

 

[supafly]

I've never attended an AA/NA meeting, nor have I spoken with any of these people you're referring to, so I can't speak to that.

I've made it clear how I feel about the term and its implications. I can't speak for others.

Every single person who speaks starts by addressing the fact that they are addicts (or alcoholics). In recovery, that is the one thing that cannot be forgotten, because that’s the reason why you’re there in the first place. They keep that idea on the front burner at all times.

They use the same boilerplate greeting in every meeting prior to speaking in every city, state, and country in the world: “Hi, my name is Sally and I’m an addict.” (Everyone responds: “Hi, Sally”)

Others are even more hardcore by stating that “I’m an addict named Jim.” (Everyone responds: “Hi, Jim”)

 

[supafly]

I've never attended an AA/NA meeting, nor have I spoken with any of these people you're referring to, so I can't speak to that.

I've made it clear how I feel about the term and its implications. I can't speak for others.

I gotcha. Just making you aware that I did not mean for it to be demeaning in any way.

 

[DaBruinz]

The last sentence that I quoted is what I was referring to, but I don’t have any idea what your second paragraph is stating here. Either way, we’re not going to agree on this one, so maybe we should avoid any unnecessary back and forths.

Supafly - So, what you meant and what you said were two different things. Got it.

As for you being "classroom and street educated" on the topics, you're statements for the most part have not given that impression. They've given the impression that you aren't very informed on the subject and that your strict stance is reality. In fact. It came across that if you could do it, then someone with the chance at tens of millions of dollars should have an easier time doing it.

Up until your message back to Dreighver about me (#2306) , you hadn't said anything about how hard addiction actually is. In fact, your statements pretty much had downplayed just how tough fighting addiction actually is. I didn't feel the need to "acknowledge the people who had succeeded because" you'd already done that.

My 2nd paragraph was to point out the people you were ignoring. The ones who haven't started. The ones who have tried and relapsed. You continue to tout all these great success stories about people beating addiction, but you ignored all the people who haven't been able to. Who are still hooked and probably will continue to be hooked until they die. Your stance comes across as ignoring the fact that more than a few addicts relapse and relapse more than once.

The part where I said "From all walks of life. From Rich to Poor" was to remind you that the "once in a life time chance" doesn't mean squat when it comes to addiction. Addiction doesn't discriminate based on race, sex, creed, or gender.

And yes, to acknowledge Drieghver, it's different for everyone.

 

[supafly]

Supafly - So, what you meant and what you said were two different things. Got it.

As for you being "classroom and street educated" on the topics, you're statements for the most part have not given that impression. They've given the impression that you aren't very informed on the subject and that your strict stance is reality. In fact. It came across that if you could do it, then someone with the chance at tens of millions of dollars should have an easier time doing it.

Up until your message back to Dreighver about me (#2306) , you hadn't said anything about how hard addiction actually is.

Look, man. I’m not sure what your end game is here, but you jumped (head on) into a respectful conversation making all kinds of snarky remarks, smashing the “disagree” button like you often do, and even making the outright suggestion that I didn’t know anything about the subject matter. As I’ve stated without the need to bore you with my resume or life experience scrapboook, that’s simply incorrect. I quoted your statement and pointed out how the last sentence was incorrect. I’m not sure where the error or miscommunication occurred after that. There’s no “I mean one thing but say another” type of immaturity going on, here. I don’t play games like that.

Circling back to Josh Gordon—my simple stance comes from a response that I made to someone who claimed how intelligent he was. Again, I disagree, simple as that. Nothing he has done in his life in the past 8-9 years has been anything close to intelligent. The smartest thing this kid has done in the past 8 or so years occurred last week when he got himself kicked off of the Cleveland Browns. That’s my take. I understand why you may disagree with it, and I respect that.

In terms of addiction, I think that it may be more difficult for me to coddle him and give him the benefit of the doubt, at this point in time. He’s had access to numerous fancy doctors, addiction counselors, rehabs, programs, etc. While I agree with you that it’s a disease, I also think that it’s a disease that can be overcome, with work from the addict. There are three basic rules: Don’t pick up, call your sponsor when you have an urge, and go to daily meetings. If Josh Gordon can’t do that for the next 18 months until he has the chance to hit unrestricted free agency and sign a deal that would provide him and his family the financial security that would take care of them all—forever—then he’s just not very intelligent. Up to this point, he has not been able to do that; hence, my comments about him possibly being book smart, but not *really* being too smart in the big picture. There’s really nowhere else to go with our conversation in my opinion, but I am more than happy to offer you the last word on the matter, should you choose.

 

[Angelpats]

Look, man. I’m not sure what your end game is here, but you jumped (head on) into a respectful conversation making all kinds of snarky remarks, smashing the “disagree” button like you often do, and even making the outright suggestion that I didn’t know anything about the subject matter. As I’ve stated without the need to bore you with my resume or life experience scrapboook, that’s simply incorrect. I quoted your statement and pointed out how the last sentence was incorrect. I’m not sure where the error or miscommunication occurred after that. There’s no “I mean one thing but say another” type of immaturity going on, here. I don’t play games like that.

Circling back to Josh Gordon—my simple stance comes from a response that I made to someone who claimed how intelligent he was. Again, I disagree, simple as that. Nothing he has done in his life in the past 8-9 years has been anything close to intelligent. The smartest thing this kid has done in the past 8 or so years occurred last week when he got himself kicked off of the Cleveland Browns. That’s my take. I understand why you may disagree with it, and I respect that.

In terms of addiction, I think that it may be more difficult for me to coddle him and give him the benefit of the doubt, at this point in time. He’s had access to numerous fancy doctors, addiction counselors, rehabs, programs, etc. While I agree with you that it’s a disease, I also think that it’s a disease that can be overcome, with work from the addict. There are three basic rules: Don’t pick up, call your sponsor when you have an urge, and go to daily meetings. If Josh Gordon can’t do that for the next 18 months until he has the chance to hit unrestricted free agency and sign a deal that would provide him and his family the financial security that would take care of them all—forever—then he’s just not very intelligent. Up to this point, he has not been able to do that; hence, my comments about him possibly being book smart, but not *really* being too smart in the big picture. There’s really nowhere else to go with our conversation in my opinion, but I am more than happy to offer you the last word on the matter, should you choose.

Supa, intelligence has nothing to do with addiction. Lots of very smart people have succumbed to addiction.

 

[supafly]

Lots of very smart people have succumbed to addiction.

I’m aware of the numerous tortured authors, artists, physicians, nurses, etc that fall into addiction. Unless one lives under a rock, we all know smart people who drink and do drugs.

For me, Josh Gordon (specifically) hasn’t shown himself to be intelligent in any capacity, and that’s been going on for quite sometime, now. The dude continuously hangs out with Johnny Manziel, and has somehow let himself get years behind on his child support payments, while making around 750k per year. Setting the drugs aside, what has he done that symbolizes intelligence, to you?

 

[Jackson 2]

I’m aware of the numerous tortured authors, artists, physicians, nurses, etc that fall into addiction. Unless one lives under a rock, we all know smart people who drink and do drugs.

For me, Josh Gordon (specifically) hasn’t shown himself to be intelligent in any capacity, and that’s been going on for quite sometime, now. The dude continuously hangs out with Johnny Manziel, and has somehow let himself get years behind on his child support payments, while making around 750k per year. Setting the drugs aside, what has he done that symbolizes intelligence, to you?

I'd characterize those types of behaviors as judgement issues, rather than intelligence ones. With that said, in my opinion hanging out with people like Manziel and being late with child payments aren't excusable under any circumstances. He's responsible for those, but I think that's more symbolic of a decision-making deficiency as opposed to a cognitive deficit. But, as I indicated above, that's just my take.

 

[Angelpats]

I’m aware of the numerous tortured authors, artists, physicians, nurses, etc that fall into addiction. Unless one lives under a rock, we all know smart people who drink and do drugs.

For me, Josh Gordon (specifically) hasn’t shown himself to be intelligent in any capacity, and that’s been going on for quite sometime, now. The dude continuously hangs out with Johnny Manziel, and has somehow let himself get years behind on his child support payments, while making around 750k per year. Setting the drugs aside, what has he done that symbolizes intelligence, to you?

I can’t say because I’ve never met the man, but from all accounts of players who have interacted with him they have all said he is a smart person. He also seems reasonable and concise in the interviews he has done. He’s not Mensa but not an air head either. I think it’s the immaturity that’s the issue. We have all been young and done stupid sbit.

Before Hernandez died he wrote that Brady told him to get away from the people he associates with. It’s the advice he most regretted not taking. Hopefully a new start can help him.

 

[moosekill]

Seems to me we have covered the whole addiction, addict, smoking pot, intelligence issue stuff now. We can probably stop talking about that stuff.

It is all up to Josh to decide if he is
a)ready to stay clean and sober
b)able to stay clean and sober
c)follow the Patriots rules
d) excel with the Patriots.