And neither does your opinion. Unless you have access to the inside of Revis' brain you can't comment on his intention. He's not going to throw his team under the bus or diminish his market value, so speculating about it is pointless. That is so wrong, it's not even funny. Companies have ups and downs just like NFL teams. Just because you do not have IMMEDIATE success, does not mean you won't be successful down the road, or that you don't care about it. It means you are dedicated to making the company you work for now, more successful. It doesn't mean that you didn't care about success before (as fans have said about Revis on the Jets) OR that you don't care about success now and just want to collect a paycheck. Leaving the Jets didn't mean that Revis doesn't care about success. That was my point that I brought up because fans were claiming this. You could possibly say he values money more than success, but of course it would be speculation. I was arguing against the notion that he doesn't care about winning and hasn't ever. Read the analogy again. I didn't leave anything out. You are trying to paint my argument as much different than it actually is, and you tend to do this quite a bit.
There's not that much difference between a Bentley and a used Corrola.:shit: He may well want to start a foundation at some point in his life. Don't tell me 10 or 20 or 30 million extra after taxes to a guy in his late 20's early 30's won't make a significant difference, it can be a huge difference. Money is more then putting food on the table and taking care of your kids. It opens doors that most people don't even know exist. Revis is a very smart, very motivated guy. He may have career ambition that goes far beyond football and an extra 10 million over the course of a short career could be very significant. There are plenty of pro-athletes who made more money then they could have ever dreamed of who are flat broke with all kinds of horrible medical problems. The suits who own the NFL are worth Billions. They aren't just feeding their grandchildren, they are wielding power. The problem most pro athletes have is they don't see that most of their lives ahead of them will be out of football. Revis may be selfish but he's playing "Pro" football and he is most definitely playing the professional angle like a champion. So far 2 hold outs and a threat of a third have made him 10's of millions of dollars more then he would have by being a team guy.
Knowing who his uncle was, they never should have drafted him. Period. Mevi$. And now that he's been gone a while, it would be nice for the people that said PAY A CB 16 mil, step up and admit the obvious?
There is no CB that has the impact of a game, commensurate with the salary cap he demanded. Period. MoWilk has a better argument.
it is not my opinion what he said. what he said exists, and I am discussing what he said. you are attempting to claim he meant something that doesn't appear in his words. he was asked specifically about money in conjunction with the playing for the coach, not the team. he didn't say he would rather play for Schiano than Rex, he focused on one thing in isolation -- $16 million is better, without any other qualification. that means he was discussing it solely about the money. there is no reasonable way you can claim he meant that as he prefers to play for the Bucs and is defending them. his answer was about money. I don't need access to his brain to discuss what he said. what he said is what he is judged by. your attempt to make that argument is simply deflecting that point because you can't dispute it. no, it was a simplified explanation, but one that still defeats your argument. the question Revis was asked was only relevant to this year, not projecting whether the Bucs would go 16-0 next season and thus his decision would prove the right one. and based on teh current standings of this season only, he would still prefer to make the $16 mil than less on the Jets and win. so any analogy you make has to replicate that dynamic, which makes your above argument irrelevant again. but most people aren't claiming he doesn't care at all about winning, it is that he cares more about money than winning. his answer sides with that accusation. no, your analogy depended on simplifying the situation and ignoring one of the factors -- winning (or sales/profit for a business) and just claim that leaving one team or business did not equate to not wanting to be successful. if you meant something different, than you poorly communicated your position. but I didn't misread it because what was required to make a relevant argument was not present at all. this is common practice for you and not reflective of how I dispute your arguments.
I don't think it's an issue, he understands it's a business, the owners treat it the same way, if I were in a situation where I can make an additional 4 million a year, I would take it, especially since he can command it. The NFL is a business and thats all it is, the owners have marketed it extremely well, don't hate on Revis for trying to beat the house at its own game.
The more I think about this thread the more I wonder why Revis is a greedy prick who doesn't want to win when the owners have conspired to have a salary cap to protect the group from owners who want to win. The rookie wage scale the union busting the NFL draft is not about promoting competition and winning. It's about money. What's wrong with the players taking their lead from the owners?
what if you had the opportunity to make an extra $4 million, but the job required you were unable to see your family or children for 5 years. would you do it? maybe you would, but the point is that if you wouldn't then you then believe there is something more valuable -- your family -- then the extra $4 million, and so you can't argue that you would simply take an extra $4 million, regardless of any other factor. for Revis, we are discussing not the extra $4 mil in isolation but against another factor -- winning. some players may take less to win, so it isn't unreasonable for fans to believe that players would prefer to win than simply make extra money.
Jet, if the issue is family, then it's very different and I would agree with you, but the nature of this thread is about winning or money, you take the money from the highest bidder because they believe you or in this case Revis can help them win, but if it doesn't help them win, it does not make you a selfish player. He will only get top dollar for his service as long as he is perceived as an asset, and that being the case he is doing the right thing by capitalizing on it. No player takes less money in the prime of their career for winning, the only time they take less is when they are near the end of their career for one last shot. And if you do find a player that takes less for winning, its just structured differently where they get most if it in a bonus as opposed to a bigger yearly salary. So their self sacrifice for winning is not really much of a sacrifice.
Revis should not burn his bridges with the Jets. He got a good deal in Tampa Bay. But they way the are using him is not to his benefit. He will never shine in Tampa like he did in NY. If Revis is decent the Bucs have to hang on to him for 2 years. Revis makes 32 million in two years. The Bucs will cut him within two years realizing their mistake and save cap space. It would be nice if Rex is still with us in two years and Revis comes back at a reduced salary. For this to happen he can't have 2 good years at Tampa or else some other team will pick him up. I know a lot of folks will say hey screw this guy if he has another good season with us he will just hold out again. But in 2-3 years he's on the back end of his career and I think Revis will want to end his career with a bang. I could be wrong but it is a possibility.
you're absolutely right about taking the money because you believe you will help them win. but that wasn't the question posed to Revis about his belief that he could help them win in the future. he was asked a specific question about the current situation he was in -- would he rather still make $16 mil and be playing with the win-less Schiano or make only $12 mil and be playing for Rex, which means playing for Rex on a team which is competing for the playoffs. his answer was simply "$16 mil is better." his answer was specifically about money, and it was better to make the extra money, even if it meant being winless, than playing with Rex and winning but making less money. he was asked a specific question about money n conjunction with the coach, so his answer can't be applied to the broader concept of what he believed prior to playing a game when he signed the contract.
This is pretty much spot on. Revis also had the added issue of a devastating injury. He may well never have this value again it would have been a high risk move for him to turn down what may well be his last big pay day. The fact that a team was willing to pay him for his performance 2 years ago when he didn't have an ACL was something that shouldn't be overlooked.
nobody is saying Revis should have turned down $16 million and the trade to the Bucs. and that wasn't the question posed to him. he absolutely made the right decision in signing with the Bucs. but the question posed was did $12 million and playing with Rex have any merit vs the current situation, $16 million and playing for Schiano on a win-less team that doesn't matter. that's not asking whether it was the smart business decision so much as which scenario brings him the most satisfaction. you can make a smart business decision and still be disappointed with the results, and prefer an alternative. in fairness to Revis, it was a no win situation. what was he supposed to say? he would prefer playing for Rex and making less? nobody could have reasonably expected that answer, so it was a loaded question to begin with. the problem is he was posed with a question that had three factors to consider -- is the coach he plays for important, whether if the team he plays for matters (winning team or losing team) is important, and whether either of those can be as valuable as money and thus offset the cost of making less money. he answered directly about the money. not the coach, or playing on a team that matters -- two other factors in the question posed to him. the criticism with Revis is that he is more concerned about money than anything else, including team success, and when posed with a question about that very thing he answered specifically and solely about the money, validating that criticism. whether he made the smart business decision is separate from that criticism and that his comment validated it.
Why is that criticism valid? He plays "Pro" football for a living. A player who makes himself the single most valuable asset at his position motivated by money is only valuable to "professional" teams if they see him as a key piece in winning. Revis isn't being paid stupid money by NFL owners for just being a great CB. They are paying him because they believe he will help them win. Whatever his motivation is I think the critics are mostly the same as jilted lovers. Some women move on when the perceive the situation they are moving on to as more congenial, some move on because the situation is more profitable, some move on because their X was an abusive slob. The critics in this case are mostly Jets fans who have been jilted and it makes them feel good to say Revis isn't a winner when he isn't here anymore. There are plenty of guys who cherish winning over money who have no impact on whether their teams can win or not. Are they "winners"? Was Tomlinson a winner when he decided to play for the Jets because he perceived the Jets to be a sure SB team? Revis is a pro playing in a league where from year to year nobody knows who's going to be good and who's going to suck. Revis is a mercenary no different then every coach and player in the NFL. The NFL has tried to build loyalty and winning by drafting players as if it was a slave auction. Spare me the critique.
it is valid now because his response validated it. you want to say it isn't a criticism but something that is normal, that is fine. unfortunately there is a history of athletes who were dedicated primarily to winning, and whose financial gain increased because of that winning, thus going hand in hand and not sacrificing one for the other. So the expectation from fans that the athletes they follow want to win primarily isn't unreasonable and not wanting to win primarily a valid criticism. of course owners pay him with the expectation that he will lead to victories. whether he shares the same primary concern with winning is something they likely expect in return, though. perhaps somewhat, but I don't think you have to be emotionally scarred like an ex-lover by Revis' departure to discuss it and criticize his priorities. certainly some are. being a winner and striving to be a winner are two different things. some players want to win and are on shitty teams. those players would likely answer differently than Revis when posed with the question. Revis answered in a way that says the opposite. no, but it indicated that winning was important to him and what was driving his decision. the discussion is desire, not the actual outcome. exactly, which is why nobody could criticize him for going to the Bucs, especially when it certainly looked like the future was much brighter than it was for the Jets. seemed like the ideal situation. but the question was posed to him based on the current circumstances. but, like I stated before, it was a bullshit question to begin with. that being said, I don't think Revis gives a shit that people know and criticize him for being primarily interested in money over any other factor that can be achieved through a career in football. he has been rather unapologetic about it his entire career.
And the truth is he shouldn't give a shit. The reality is the motivation of money is just as valid as the desire to win in actually determining winning and losing. If my team won the SB with great QB play by a QB who was motivated to play great because he was rewarded with money as opposed to winning why as a fan should I care?
Jet Blue, it's not really that complicated. I'll explain it more thoroughly this time. Joe Blow works at company A, as a Northwest regional manager. During his time there, the company has it's fair share of ups and downs, while his region consistently does very well. Due to his sustained success he thinks he deserves a promotion, but the company is struggling at the time and cannot afford it. He then decides to go work for Company B, who agrees to give him the salary he wants, so that he can take over their weakest region in the company and turn it around. During his first year there, the companies struggles significantly and profits drop big time. But HIS region substantially improves. He is doing his job, but the other regions are freefalling due to terrible executive level management and key changes in personnel. During this time, Company A has improved, but the region he used to work for has declined a bit. One day he runs into somebody that asks him about the company and says, "I remember when you worked for a company that mattered. Would you take a paycut to go back to Company A?" Joe says, "Nope, I'll take the higher pay at company B" Does that mean he values money over success? No it doesn't, because although the company is failing, HE has been quite successful at his position and believes he has earned that raise and that the company will improve over time. Should he have thrown his current company under the bus? Of course not. If that doesn't mirror the Darelle Revis situation, then I don't know what does. Look at the stats on their defense, TB passing D went from worst in the league to #11. My prior responses were mostly addressing the folks that claim he doesn't care about winning because that's a bit extreme. Obviously money is important, but he is the best at what he does. Plus the Jets are 5-4, and he was given the choice of Jets or Bucs, nothing about any other team. 5-4 is just slightly above average. It's not like the Jets are world beaters. They didn't ask him if he would take a paycut to go to the Broncos or Chiefs.
Although I get your analogy, in my opinion the typical business is not really the same as a sports team - to most people at least. You are describing it exactly as Revis sees it- it's just a job and he wants to make as much money as he can make for doing his job. It's not "wrong" to view sports teams as "just another business", but if one really feels that way at a core level, there's no reason to give a crap about the team unless you own it. The Ravens win a Super Bowl. Ok, whatever. What % of people in Baltimore work for the Ravens? Less than 1% of 1%. How many own the Ravens? Just one guy or one family. Yet- the city, the sports watching fans of all of Maryland, they care. The difference between regular companies and sports teams is that people care how they do, even though honestly it should not make any difference in your life if your team wins 50 Super Bowls in a row, or if you've been to every home game from age 12 and now you're 72 and your team hasn't won one. What should you care, if you don't own the team? It's just someone else's company, and you don't even work there, so it's not like you could get fired or promoted based on the results of the team. The reality is, that you make an emotional investment, as a fan. This is the city you're from. This is your team. Yeah, they don't know who you are and wouldn't really even know if something terrible or wonderful happened to you- but at some point, either because you watched the games with your dad, or friends in college, or you just turned on the TV one Sunday at home and started rooting for the team from your area- somewhere along the line you put more into it than makes any "logical sense". It's the emotional investment. There's that notion too, for players. Not necessarily so much in terms of loyalty to the team per se, because the cold reality is that players are commodities, and those commodities have prices, and youth is an asset and one that constantly degrades. If you are fringe talent, you want to stay in the league. This is life-changing money, the rookie minimum. $390k or whatever is a mega-ton of money for the overwhelming majority of people, let alone 22 year olds. At the journeyman level, you have more stability, you can hang on a roster for awhile, maybe you can stay with one team for 4 - 10 years, maybe that's split up into 2 teams. You know you're not going to make the difference between glory or not, but you take pride in your work. And then there are stars and superstars. At that level, you really should care about more than just immediate term money. You should care about endorsements too. You don't get mega endorsements as the star of a losing team. Americans like winners. We don't care about who's the strongest guy in the anorexia ward. We like champions. Now, okay, maybe Revis does not care about his legacy. Ok. He has every right to treat it like a regular old job. But he still made a bad decision. Why? 1) His contract has NO guaranteed money. That is huge. Normally you'd rather take guaranteed money over a larger amount of non-guaranteed money, because things are so uncertain in the NFL. If he tears his ACL again, in 2014 he will be on a $4m contract somewhere WISHING he had taken a 75% guaranteed contract at $12m from the Jets. No guarantees, no bonuses = no job security. 2) He's not going to get much endorsement money compared to what he'd get in NYC. If he had a real "team player" attitude, and had also stayed with the Jets, he'd be making several million dollars a year extra in endorsements. Not LeBron James money, but a few million dollars a year, possibly enough to overcome taking a lower salary in NYC. If he won a Super Bowl with the Jets, that number would go up even higher, because when the Jets win a Super Bowl it is going to be a very big deal- as big a deal for NYC as it was for Boston when the Red Sox won that World Series and "broke the curse". The stars of whatever Jets team wins the Super Bowl are going to be the heroes of New York City, the media capital of the United States. That's the kind of stuff that leads to $5m a year TV analyst gigs. Do you think Michael Strahan would've had his TV career if he didn't win a Super Bowl on a New York team? He's going to make over $100m in his lifetime after football. Because he was a top level player on championship team. If you're that good and you play 15 years on the crappy Jaguars, you still get into the Hall of Fame but you don't get a shot at a mega-high-earning post-NFL career. 3) Schematically, Rex is more likely to use his talents to their best levels, allowing him to play at a higher level, get more accolades, raise his profile more and more, and cause him to get more money in endorsements. That is also amplified by winning. I know the whole "more endorsements is risky, though" - yeah, but isn't taking a no-guarantee contract also risky? It is. So, I don't see eye-to-eye with you on this. I think Revis does.
Those who are taking Revis' side are not factoring in all the endorsement $ he already makes outside of his NFL salary. Additionally the guy was all about money from the very second the Jets drafted him. I admire his ability as a football player. But he's shown his true colors as a me first money grub. From a locker room/leadership perspective the Jets are better off without him. Let him enjoy rotting away in that disaster down in Tampa.
