Heh. I know. That's what passes for solid evidence, for some, anyway. And for the thousandth time that is not the issue. The issue is what he would sign a contract for. Why is this so hard for some people here? Again, I think it is because they think Revis is likely going to be gone and they want to not feel bad about it, so they are preparing themselves in advance. It's rather transparent, I think.
you need to work on the clarity of your posts. In your previous post you said Revis will sign a deal below market because he loves the Jets. Then you posted smh below that. How else are we to take that other than that you are displeased that he will not sign a below market agreement because he doesn't really love the Jets? And of course he SHOULD love the Jets and because he loves them, or if he did love them, he SHOULD sign a below market agreement. Perhaps you meant something else.
This is called a "source" ... you've probably heard of the term before. It's a relatively common thing in journalism to have an anonymous source. It only becomes problematic when you're the daily news and every piece of information you report on is from an anonymous source. It's highly doubtful the Post pulled that out of thin air. It's likely from some one very reliable if they printed it.
A source is somebody who knows. Not somebody who heard somebody who says they know. The odds are excellent that the sources the Daily News and Post are using are in Revis camp. Those are the only guys who know for a fact what Revis is looking for.
A home town discount from Revis is an oxymoron. He hasn't even avoided a hold out yet. This is a player whose primary concern by far is how much he is paid and being among the highest paid players, not just CBs, in the NFL. Discount? What a joke.
Even Tannenbaum and Johnson don't know what Revis is looking for. It would take contract negotiations to have occurred for them to know for sure. We'd have heard about it if negotiations on a new contract occurred at any point. There'd have been a leak when they broke down. The fact that all we keep hearing is that Revis is believed to be seeking $16M a year suggests very strongly that the figure is being leaked by his side. Think about it.
Which leads to the next step of speculation. If Revis's camp is leaking this do you think it's his subtle way of asking for a trade without the PR of asking for a trade? Essentially, he could be leaking his demands so the trade partner is aware making an extension at a new destination easier.
I think the figures have been getting leaked since the band-aid contract/will he-won't he holdout thing last year. I don't think it's a new development. I think they've been negotiating through the press for more than a year now. The reason things didn't get hotter last year on that front is that Revis got hurt, which threw a wrench into the works.
Unless Woody decided long ago for personal reasons he didn't want to pay Revis and they're leaking the 16M number to justify trading him to the fans. I know that is a bit farfetched, especially since the Revis camp hasn't denied looking for Mario Williams money.
OK - even if it is his side, it's still a legit source. BTW, the term "someone familiar with his thinking" or terms similar to that are used by respected journalists citing anonymous sources all the time.
Ridding yourself, of Scott,Pace, and Smith....can hardly be called rebuilding. Even if you add Revis to that mix. You'll notice they e not taken a hammer to the offense. Just the Cap, and lack of team speed.
Um, no. I am not lying. Nowhere in that article does it quote Revis or his agent. NOWHERE. Don't call me a liar, that's insulting. Prove your position with facts rather than speculation. "According to someone familiar with his thinking", is not "Revis said", "Revis wants", or "Revis' agent said". Proof or it didn't happen, buddy. I care about tangible facts and evidence. You may want to look up the word "truth" before calling me a liar. "I heard from a guy that heard from a guy" DOES NOT EQUAL TRUTH. Learn how the media operates, Jeebus. It becomes problematic when you present hearsay as fact, and use to to insult my integrity. The NY POST is a horrible paper, and blindly believing them is just as bad. I don't believe anything unless it has been proven to be true or close to it. "I know many have speculated stuff about Revis "wanting" more money, but there's no actual evidence of this." My original quote that I was called a liar for... Post the actual evidence please and prove me wrong. People don't understand simple logic and burden of proof these days. Standards are so low it's ridiculous. Logical fallacies matter.
I don;t want to pull the appeal to authority argument here, but it is true nonetheless I literally work in a business where I am always analyzing the weight and persuasiveness of different kinds of evidence. I never said the source you referred to has no value. But neither is it strong evidence. It is somewhere in the middle. You are right that there is something to the notion that Revis well might want $16 mil or up. But we don't know what he expects to get, and we don't know what he will sign for at the end of negotiations. And the source you refer to at the Post almost certainly does not know those things either.
The joke is any poster here expecting that Revis should give the Jets a hometown discount. The Jets do have some leverage, however, since they do have Revis on one year left at a below market salary. They should use that now as some leverage to get a long term deal. But I never said anyting about Revis giving the Jets a hometown discount, other than that he will not and should not be expected to. Who else on the whole Jet roster has done that? No one.
Barcs, I undrestand what you are trying to say here, but LTJF does have something of a point, as i just said. What he is referring to is not proof, but neither is it nothing. It has some, but not much, value.
He said that I was lying and referred to his position as truth, so he does NOT have a point. I was not lying, I was following the evidence. He is using 3rd party information that cannot be verified and acting like it indicates I am being dishonest. Not even close. That's like calling me a liar for saying that I don't believe in god, and then referencing the bible as evidence. It is not objective evidence. It's one thing to speculate, but to act like what you are saying is proven fact while pretending it has objective evidence behind it is flat out wrong. I was defending myself, and the viewpoint, that yes indeed, there is no objective evidence to suggest Revis wants 16m or to be the highest paid defensive player. I know debating and I know logic, and his position is speculation at best. While that notion MIGHT be true, it's hardly a fact.
