You know, that is a pretty low comment, and I consider it a personal attack. It is also quite unfair. On Ignore you go.
The more I think about the contract that Revis signed, the more I think Tampa made a killer deal. Think about it, they gave up a 1 and a 4 that could turn into a 3 if Revis is still on their roster in 2014. What is stopping them from getting Revis on a one year rental and then trading him to the highest bidder before next season starts? Once he is proven he is healthy, and against stellar wide receivers. No guaranteed money means no accelerated cap hit, so they can basically trade him at any time. It's like Flip The House, but with a mansion instead of a rotted out ranch house. Pretty big risk, but an enormous reward if it pays off.
Good point and scary too but it still comes down to whether or not there is any other complete idiot GM willing to pay him 16 million a year. There wasn't this time and I doubt there will be next time either. Not to mention that in order to trade him he will have to be on their roster in March meaning they are committed to paying him another 16 million. Huge risk for them. I would guess they will cut him before they do that.
The context of the point I made was a point JetBlue had made back at post 3693, as follows: at best, the history of the NFL has proven that no SB winning team has been spearheaded by having the best CB in the league Now of course you can debate the meaning of the word "spearheaded" there, in the context of his assertion. But I do think the example of the 83 Raiders is instructive. And ftr what gave me the win was your failure to take into account that your argument about 83 Raiders' team season long stats did not reflect the fact that the HoF Cb in question did not join the team until there were only five regular season games to go. But everyone makes mistakes, so don't worry about it. Not to digress, and ftr, with Hayes on the other side, it may have been debatable who was the better Cb, but beyond that it was also true the two of them were a pair, and not a single Cb who was head above the #2 guy. And I never said the team had no talent elsewhere. Geez, no need for red herrings here. Hendricks, Millen and Martin were all very good to great linebackers. But the same team without Haynes lost to DC, and with him beat DC, to win the SB. The Raiders were even the underdog on points, and dominated the Skins. I find that responsive to JB's take on NFL history. It is clear that the 83 Raiders prevailed in the SB with two Cb's who were among the top five in the league then. Perhaps that does not neatly fit the model of a single Cb in effect leading the team to an SB win. But it remains an instructive example.
I was thinking the same thing, but I doubt that they trade him after one season. they didn't trade for Revis to "flip"him, as in let him prove he is healthy and still the best CB so they could get a few more draft picks later for him next year. they traded for him so he could improve their team for several years. but three years from now, let's say their team has improved in all areas, Revis is still elite, and they think they could make up for the departure of Revis by getting several players for that $16 million plus a few high draft picks (much like the Jets thinking), then I wouldn't be surprised to see them trade him, and maybe for a slightly better deal than it cost them, simply because the contract structure is so favorable for them to do so. and if Revis is still playing at an elite level there will always be a team willing to pick up that $16 million salary with no guarantees. let's concede the '83 Raiders to you. but that is still simply one team in the history of all Super Bowls winners, and a team in a different era than today. that makes it an exception, not the rule. and since I have already conceded that the argument wasn't that it was impossible, just that it didn't happen, that exception still doesn't negate the overall point -- that is it such a rare occurance, and happened so long ago, that it is hard to claim its relevance to today's game with much different rules and salary restrictions, and those rules and restrictions make it the less practical course of building a team in today's game.
Please. Go suck on your thumb, cry baby. I told you before the reason why we are having trouble resigning Revis is because of your fellow cry baby Holmes. If there was anyway to flush that turd I would have done it immediately after he threw the football to the San Fransisco 49ers D. Holmes contract should have been given to Revis. Moving on, lets have a great draft weekend :up:
I do not concede and you have not proven that having a dominant Cb on the roster makes it less practical to win an SB. But at least you concede it was done before.
That Raider team was 8 and 3 before Haynes joined the team. I think it might be instructive for you to actually look at the scores the Raiders won by in their 3 playoff wins. They averaged over 35 PPG and 400 Yards of offense per game. Saying that Raider team was built around Haynes is like saying the Steelers teams were built around Blunt or the Packer teams were built around Woodson. They one Raider CB who had the most impact on getting his team to a SB and winning a SB was Brown back in the 60's and 70's. The reason I bring him up is those Raider teams were in a decidedly pass happy league and Brown was arguably the best CB in the AFL and was top 3 after the merger. The Raider team you bring up destroyed all 3 of their playoff opponents with a devastating offensive attack.
My feelings exactly. This thread ends my interest of continuing to re hash the Revis demise. Contraacts to Holmes, Sanchez and others precluding from us seriously considering signing $revis. Having said that I'm not sure it would have been in our best interest to mortgage the farm on him regardless, but this is all water under the bridge. Its time to move on to a glorious draft weekend. May we find someone in D that will make us forget Revis woes forever more. Idzik -Revis>>>>>>Tanny+Revis
whether you concede it or not isn't important. what is important is that you can't dispute it. but, again, you have reverted to a completely different argument. the argument is not whether it is not practical to have a dominant CB on the roster; the argument is whether dominant CB's can make up for deficiencies on the defense in other areas and can elevate a team to a Super Bowl caliber team. your Raiders example did not do that at all, which is why, even if conceded for sake of argument, it doesn't dispute the point being made at all.
talk about changing arguments! You do it from one post to the next! And I do dispute your assertion. YOU are the one who asserted that a team cannot win the SB with a Cb "spearheading" the team. Now you are talking about deficiencies elsewhere. Let's clear through the nonsense. My point was and remains that Revis did not prevent the Jets from rebuilding into a contender. It was and remains several other highly paid and underperforming players on the roster who have been the problem, and still are. That and that there is nothing about the game, nothing you have proven, and it is after all YOUR assertion, that a team cannot be an SB contender with a D including a top CB, even a well paid one. Next year the Jets will have plenty of cap space. They could have fit Revis in and been a contender. You have yet to prove and even make a coherent argument why that was not true.
tell it to Bobby Beatherd. In their prior loss to DC the Raiders scored 35 points. Only problem was the Skins scored 37. In the SB, they scored 9. Also, in the SB the first Raider TD was credited to special teams play. I will agree with you about Brown, btw. In any event, my point still stands. The 83 Raiders won the SB despite (this is too amusing - why do I have to even argue this point?) yes, DESPITE having top CB's.
we had the same hole last year and we were fine...i dont think we should draft a cb in the first round
By the way Plunkett had 4 INT's in the Redskin game that the Redskins won, they also lost 2 fumbles. 6 Turnovers might have had something to do with the Redskins 37 points? See Mark Sanchez as an example. If your point is you should have really good or great CB to win a SB no argument. However we live in a salary cap environment. Additionally the high risk of drafting top talent at a high cost that might bust has been reduced dramatically. You can always buy top talent. What you can't do is build a roster with enough overall talent to actually win a SB when a huge portion of your money is tied up in a CB and you have holes all over your roster that need to be filled. That's really the issue here. Now while you and I agree the Jets may well not add enough over all talent to compensate for the loss of Revis, that's still doesn't mean that is going to happen. It may well be that Idzik is going to build a beast of a team over the next three years and the picks and room they pick up from unloading Revis may well turn out to be plus value? What we probably agree on is that the Jets right now with or without Revis aren't making a SB run anytime soon until other parts of the team are fixed. I also think you can't completely discount that Revis may not be what he was after an ACL injury. Plenty of guys come back strong after an ACL but plenty of guys don't.
Since I agree with the rest of your post, and as I have said before I am hardly predicting that Idzy cannot build a contender from this point, I have only quoted what I disagree with. The angle in the discussion with JB is that he is not merely saying paying Revis kind of money on any player other than Qb is going to prevent you from being a contender. he is saying that paying that kind of money to your #1 Cb is going to do so. Since you have included in the quoted sentence the distinction contained in the term "is tied up in a CB", you are essentially agreeing with him. I do not agree with that. As I have been saying for months now, what prevents the Jets from succeeding now is the money tied up in too many other players who are highly paid and who underperform. Cap space taken up by them can and likely will be cleared enough next year to have had enough room for Revis and enough other players to make a difference. And to have a contender. I suppose I also, on second thought, do not entirely agree with your point about acquiring talent, if by that you mean such an acquisition program can overcome bad draft picks. Not too many of the latter, imo. More to the point I do remain persuaded by the bird in the hand notion. Revis was on the team. Aside from the acl injury and return, which I am not as concerned about as some, Revis is a known quantity. Who the Jets get in return for the picks they have obtained is not a known quantity. Worse than that it is highly unlikely the player or players they get will be on his level. Now I understand the Jets have several holes to fill, and may well approach the draft by trading down for multiple picks. I have no problem with that strategy, but again, odds are that one or more of the people they pick in this draft will underperform. And overall it is not likely that the compensation they have gotten for Revis will become players of equivalent value.
So, you want to engage in namecalling as well? I would not have thought that was your style, Roch. I also did want to get back to you, about your saying I should move on on this subject. This board is primarily a discussion board, where different points of view are exchanged and debated. It is not supposed to be about forging a homer consensus that all must agree with. It is not a pep rally. It is not required that we all don rose colored glasses and wave our pom poms and cheer. I think the Jets made a bad decision not even trying to retain Revis. That does not mean I think they certainly would have been able to reach an acceptable deal with him, or that their failure to do so means or requires that they will be damaged for the foreseeable future. Even if they do in fact succeed, it will remain an issue for me that they did not try. Which I blame on Woody. And I am hardly the only one who questions his role as owner and occasional officious intermeddler. And I do not see the need to be quiet about it merely so that you are not disturbed by arguments you disagree with. Having said that, neither is it my intention to go on and on about it for any great length of time, and in fact I am playing golf tomorrow and will not, I hope, be thinking much about Revis, Woody, or anything related to them. That about cover it.
Well I apologize for the BB comment. You are for sure entitled you you're opinion, as much as I don’t agree with it. Woody is a guy who is accustomed to getting what he wants, it's just who he is based on his experiences in life. While I usually question his decisions (Tebow was purely his call, the media circus he created to be relevant was too) this is one that I am fully on board with. For the reasons we have exhausted in this thread, I believe for once, the jets did the right thing. No matter how good Revis was, Woody was sick of catering to his demands every 3-4 years (remember Revis’s "band-aid" deal was front loaded by design). The Jets paid him premium dollars and Revis played well during that time frame but got hurt at a bad time for him. But yet again, it was reported that Revis was looking for another payday EXACTLY like the one he received from TB (so I think that report was substantiated). This deal would have crippled the Jets, It truly would have in the next 3-4 years. We did the best we could given the circumstance and I just don’t understand how some people cant's see this. You are entitled to your opinion but still haven’t come to the table with a compelling argument to sway mine. *Have fun golfing tomorrow and I hope you are hung-over with joy from what we did tonight with our two picks!
how have I changed my argument? since the discussion changed to the value of the position it is the same argument I have made. you are apparently having trouble following the discussion so I will repost both for you: of course we are talking about deficiencies elsewhere -- all teams, even Super Bowl teams, have deficiencies somewhere, but Super Bowl teams have superior players at the positions that have shown historically to mask those deficiencies. and history has shown that CB is not one of those positions.
