If Josh Gordon played we would of beat Green Bay?

Does anyone else feel like this?

Having Josh Gordon convert a few first downs + feed the beast it could of been a completely different first half. Imagine if we are tied at half 10-10 and then it's Russell Wilson in the 2nd half... I think we win this game EVEN WITH OUR #1-3 Starting Running Backs injured.

How insane is that?! We have our 3 starting running backs injured, and yet if we had 1 more quality receiver we would of beat Green Bay in my opinion.

WE LOST OUR 2 REGULAR SEASON GAMES WITHOUT JOSH GORDON BTW... THAT ALSO CHANGED THINGS BTW...

FINAL THOUGHT: Why is our tight end running so many routes short of goal or 1st down... that reminded me a little bit of Bevell... I hope it's the player because why are you running these routes like 1 foot short of first down like 100 times? I really hope it's our 3rd string Tight End that's running the routes short... cause if those are the playcalls we deserve to not reach Super Bowl.

I still cant get over that catch he made, fully stretched with the fingertips. He was clutch and it was such a shame that whatever the reasons he wasnt allowed to finish the season. I do feel he could have been our pressure release valve and made a big difference to how the season ended.

Tokadub":2ixe7fy2 said:

Does anyone else feel like this?

Having Josh Gordon convert a few first downs + feed the beast it could of been a completely different first half. Imagine if we are tied at half 10-10 and then it's Russell Wilson in the 2nd half... I think we win this game EVEN WITH OUR #1-3 Starting Running Backs injured.

How insane is that?! We have our 3 starting running backs injured, and yet if we had 1 more quality receiver we would of beat Green Bay in my opinion.

WE LOST OUR 2 REGULAR SEASON GAMES WITHOUT JOSH GORDON BTW... THAT ALSO CHANGED THINGS BTW...

FINAL THOUGHT: Why is our tight end running so many routes short of goal or 1st down... that reminded me a little bit of Bevell... I hope it's the player because why are you running these routes like 1 foot short of first down like 100 times? I really hope it's our 3rd string Tight End that's running the routes short... cause if those are the playcalls we deserve to not reach Super Bowl.

Click to expand...

Agree with your bottom line assessment Toka. However, in defense of route running, it's difficult to know exactly what yard line you're at. But you HAVE to know where the goal line is, There is no mistaking that one. But like you say on critical downs any receiver has to know the minimum to gain. You simply can't bet on YAC when coverage is tight.
IMO Gordon has the ability to figure prominently in our success. Appears he may have deficiencies in other areas, but talent level isn't one of them.

Probably not, since with less than a minute left the Packers are likely in FG range and kick it and win.

All this obsession over offense, very little concern over the defense.

bmorepunk":2dh85xps said:

Probably not, since with less than a minute left the Packers are likely in FG range and kick it and win.

All this obsession over offense, very little concern over the defense.

Click to expand...

LOL, Actually, it's been totally the other way around, the majority of the discussions have been about Defense; Pass Rushers in particular dominates, even over the needs of a crappy O-Line.

scutterhawk":23v73arb said:

bmorepunk":23v73arb said:

Probably not, since with less than a minute left the Packers are likely in FG range and kick it and win.

All this obsession over offense, very little concern over the defense.

Click to expand...

the majority of the discussions have been about Defense

Click to expand...

In the first two pages on this forum there are 150 threads. This is the breakdown on what they're about:

Current Offense: 44
Current Defense: 26
General/Historical/Non-Attributable Topics: 120

Just looking at the first page, the total post count for these offensive and defensive topics are:

Offense: 684
Defense: 372

It really sucked losing Gordon. I bet he makes that catch 17 dropped. BTW what sounds like "would of," is "would've." And would've is would have. OK lesson over.

Tune up the defense . IMO

*Would have.

Also, there's a good chance we would have won it with him, even if only for the threat on the field aspect when lined up.

Gordon had 7 catches in 5 games with the Seahawks, meaning against the Packers he would have been slightly more likely to have had one catch than zero catches.

On the Seahawks I just didn't even see any of the echoes of the Josh Gordon from six years ago that the name "Josh Gordon" evokes. If you put a different number and name on his jersey and just judge him off play alone I don't even think he's on a team's 53 man roster at this point.

Popeyejones":2pdh2oqj said:

Gordon had 7 catches in 5 games with the Seahawks, meaning against the Packers he would have been slightly more likely to have had one catch than zero catches.

On the Seahawks I just didn't even see any of the echoes of the Josh Gordon from six years ago that the name "Josh Gordon" evokes. If you put a different number and name on his jersey and just judge him off play alone I don't even think he's on a team's 53 man roster at this point.

Click to expand...

Someone still salty over those 3rd down clutch catches?

Popeyejones":1bihs4yf said:

Gordon had 7 catches in 5 games with the Seahawks, meaning against the Packers he would have been slightly more likely to have had one catch than zero catches.

On the Seahawks I just didn't even see any of the echoes of the Josh Gordon from six years ago that the name "Josh Gordon" evokes. If you put a different number and name on his jersey and just judge him off play alone I don't even think he's on a team's 53 man roster at this point.

Click to expand...

Are you serious? Despite the volume, he was reliable and came up clutch WHEN WE NEEDED HIM TO. So many people want volume and shining star plays but it's those crucial catches that make so much more difference. Key example being that Turner drop late in the GB game. I 100% feel Gordon would've made that catch and then some. You can't judge someone's play-making abilities strictly off of volume.

No. He will go down in NFL and team history as being irrelevant. He has failed every team and teammate he has played for and with.

No, not unless he can play CB.

We lost to GB because our defense couldn't make critical stops in the 4th quarter.........and anyone who think we would have gone to SF and beat a healthy, well rested and hungry Niners team the next week is delusional.

Yeah we probably would have given them a better game then the Packers, but in no world do I think as banged up as we were that we were going into SF and winning that game.

"We lost to GB because our defense couldn't make critical stops in the 4th quarter."
I can't find much a way to disagree way that.

But in regard to our final game played vs SF and the game vs GB...we lost to SF by about 4 inches and to GB by not making a couple first downs when we needed them to sustain potentially game winning drives. In both those instances a little bit of difference could have been THE difference we needed to reverse the result. I believe Gordon could have, and would have,, made more than enough difference in both those games. And had we won both those games the entire playoff scenario is changed radically.

RolandDeschain":1kulouuo said:

*Would have.

Also, there's a good chance we would have won it with him, even if only for the threat on the field aspect when lined up.

Click to expand...

Thank you! This is one of my biggest pet peeves. There's a whole generation that actually thinks it's "of" and it drives me nuts. Would'VE. WOULD'VE. Would have.

Josh Gordon rocks. I don't mind them losing to Green Bay all that much because they weren't going to beat SF at SF. So that saved us all the pain of awful 49er "fans" gloating about that for a couple weeks.

Wow! Strikes me that anyone going by the handle "FormerEvil" whose pet peeve is proper use of would have instead of would of has lived a charmed life!
I sheepishly made a quick exam to make certain I didn't peeve on your pet. Ah, sweet relief.
(We need an emoji for that)
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Just having a little fun, pard. Carry on.

FormerEvil":39kjcaar said:

RolandDeschain":39kjcaar said:

*Would have.

Also, there's a good chance we would have won it with him, even if only for the threat on the field aspect when lined up.

Click to expand...

There's a whole generation that actually thinks it's "of" and it drives me nuts. Would'VE. WOULD'VE. Would have.

Click to expand...

Which generation?

No.


We would not have played Green Bay.

Because if we had Josh Gordon we surely would have beaten San Francisco in week 17.

jmahon316":2mlrevs1 said:

Popeyejones":2mlrevs1 said:

Gordon had 7 catches in 5 games with the Seahawks, meaning against the Packers he would have been slightly more likely to have had one catch than zero catches.

On the Seahawks I just didn't even see any of the echoes of the Josh Gordon from six years ago that the name "Josh Gordon" evokes. If you put a different number and name on his jersey and just judge him off play alone I don't even think he's on a team's 53 man roster at this point.

Click to expand...

You can't judge someone's play-making abilities strictly off of volume.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree, which is why I noted both his volume (slightly over 1 catch per game) and my impression of him independent of volume (I don't think he makes a roster at this point if his name isn't Josh Gordon).

The Gordon I saw on the Seahawks this year is the same Gordon I saw on the Patriots this year: in his six years of drug addiction and not playing football, he's the same very uninspired route runner he has always been, and doesn't have the athletic ability anymore that he used to dominate with.

Trying to convert formerly dominant WRs who just don't have it anymore into 3rd down chain movers is a standard formula, and it tends to be the last ditch effort in a WR's career. It was the same story with Brandon Marshall last year, and Randy Moss' last year on the 9ers too.