what exactly does that do for the 2013 season. Bragging rights for the best secondary on a 7-9 / 8-8 team. Whoopie f'n doo! Then Revis hits the market and we get squadouche. Lovely. But hey, we had the best secondary in 2013. Sigh....
Wilk will get paid, and he's earned it. Would not need to pay it until 2015. Coples not till 2016, and i'm not convinced as of yet that he's a big money guy. He has to show a lot more. Sanchez, Holmes and Harris contracts will be gone. Good chance we'd move on from Cro after 2014. Signing Revis does not mean inability to re-sign our key pieces.
Dude....get a grip. They win 6, with massive injuries on the skill positions. Returning Holmes,Hill,kerley, and MM is worth more than 2 games.
I would totally agree, IF Mevis would take a reasonable contract extension, say $9-10M per year. But he will hold out and try to get $15M a year in FA next year, and someone will probably pay it to him. So trade him now and get something or lose him next year for nothing.
Yes, the Jets' cap problems clear up substantially after this year. People need to pay attention. As for Cro, it's too early to tell what the long, or even medium, term might be. But if Revis is back, and the team can get decent safety play, what with Coples and Wilks a year better, this could be a very good D.
This argument is drifting somewhat into pass rusher versus shut down corner, and by so doing in my view we keep talking past each other. Of course having a shut down corner makes your secondary far better and arguably the whole D better as well. Likewise without a legit pass rusher its only a matter of time before top knotch QBs tear your apart, shut down corner or not. The real debate is this -for a rebuilding team with so many holes and still searching for a QB, can we realistically afford to retain Revis and continue to develop the caliber team we need? If we determine that the highest salaries should be allocated in priority order TO QB, LOT, OLB, DE, may be stud WR, then paying a CB that kind of money is absolutely not the answer, unless the rest of the positions are locked up for a few years. In our case, as good as Revis is, the best path is to sub-optimize the secondary some and make the rest of the positions better. This will give us a better team. Ubfortunately, We can't have it both ways
Pass rusher vs shutdown corner is a legitimate argument but that's like arguing the size of apples. You need both oranges and apples to win in the NFL absent a singularly great player who actually dominates on offense or defense. No cornerback can dominate on defense. It's just not possible under normal circumstances. Tails don't wag dogs. The only player in the NFL who has been dominant enough on defense to win a Super Bowl in the post-Manning era is Ray Lewis and he had a lot of help. The only player in the NFL who has been dominant enough to win a Super Bowl without a lot of help is Peyton Manning and he only did it once. There's just no argument anywhere else in the NFL that any other player exerts enough dominance on either offense or defense to win a Super Bowl. Super Bowls are won by teams with a lot of players all peaking at the right time at the end of the season. Drew Brees has been the best QB in the NFL since 2006. He has one Super Bowl win to show for that despite being a step above his great competitors for most of that period. Peyton Manning has been the second best QB since 2006. One Super Bowl. Tom Brady has been the third best and no Super Bowl wins. Aaron Rodgers has been the best since 2010. One Super Bowl. There's just no argument that a great player is going to get you multiple rings at this point. The teams that get multiple rings have a lot of talent in different areas headlined by a very good QB. They're Goldilocks teams, not too hot, not too cold, just right at the end of the season. In that context it's just absurd to pay huge sums to any position other than QB. It's actually probably self-defeating to pay a QB at the top of the pay scale no matter how good he is. To win a Super Bowl you need 4 or 5 guys on a roster who are 10's and then a whole bunch of supporting 7 to 9's. You need to avoid having a bunch of 5's and 6's on the field and you really need to avoid have a few 4's and less that are going to kill you every time they get tested in a tight spot.
BTW, I think the Ravens blew the Flacco call. I think they should have franchised him this year. If he turned out to be good enough to get them to another Super Bowl then they give him the big deal. The franchise tag this year would have cost them $14.9M against the cap. They should also have drafted a QB in this draft and been prepared to take one next year as well.
http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcsouth/po...caneers-would-look-bad-without-darrelle-revis I find this article interesting. Doesn't seem as though this is the doing of Revis' agent or Tampa Bay. Very Jets slanted article from a Tampa Bay beat writer.
Ok, i agree. You need several guy's who are 10's. Difference makers that opposing teams need to game plan around. Preferably 2-3 on each side of ball. You need to limit the 3's and 4's, as opposing teams will exploit that weakness. Large part of the bell curve should be in that 6-9 range. The key is not paying guys like 10's, who do not perform like 10's. That is the Jets current problem. Green Bay had to make the tough decisions to part ways with Jennings and Woodson, former 10's. They are using that money to pay their current 10's, Rodgers and Mathews. That is a good move by a good organization. According to your other logic, they should not have paid Mathews. I don't agree with that part. You pay your performing 10's as long as they are performing, at reasonable market value for their position. In very rare cases, you go above market value, but not to the point of crippling the rest of the roster. Paying Revis in the 12-13 mil makes a lot of sense by this logic, but not 15 mil. He's in his prime, plays at an 11, and is the leader of the D.
good post. I agree. Once the cap clears up going into next off season, the Jets will have plenty of money to pay Revis what he is worth and still have enough left over to field a very competitive team. They just need a decent Qb.
He's not exactly a Tampa Bay beat writer, he covers the NFC South for ESPN. I'm not generally a negative fan, but I don't see how this ends well for us. I think we'll get some picks that will help us in the future, but not the big score that people thought when reports were that Revis would have a huge market. I have this awful feeling that if we don't trade him before the draft, we will end up watching him walk away for nothing.
Well we absolutely need a QB in a critical way, but that is not all we need. We need that bell curve to be rich in the 6-9 skill range in Brad's example. That means we really need to start drafting well and making the most out of those picks (including QB).
He's both, he use to cover the Bucs in the 90's before moving to Carolina to cover the Panthers, so he's a homer, he then started his blog for the NFC South. I know Pat personally, he moved back to Tampa a few years ago, he's practicably my neighbor. And with that said I think most of his blogs suck.
? everybody talking about how you should spend money on a team and trying to look at the past superbowl winners and structure your contracts and essentially players around that would be very much applying moneyball concepts to football i just dont think that you can honestly look at football that way
How about the Jets trade Kyle Wilson for the Bucs' 13th overall pick, a 3rd and a 5th and the Jets keep Revis? Now that would be a pure BALLER move like Tanny used to be able to pull off back in the day!
