Why the Jets Should Make Darrelle Revis the Highest Paid Cornerback in the NFL
by John B on Aug 10, 2010 5:03 PM EDT
Email
PrintWe had a great discussion post on the site last night that really helped me think things through and gather my own thoughts on this mess. Certain opinions of mine have not changed. I still think Darrelle Revis is making a mistake and getting bad advice. I am also now convinced the Jets should top Nnamdi Asomugha’s contract.
Let’s think about it. Generally speaking, the people on this site have come to a figure of around $12 million per season as fair market value. That’s reasonable. Asante Samuel and Nate Clements have contracts for around $10 million per. Revis is better than both players.
The chatter seems to be that Revis wants to top Nnamdi Asomugha’s annual value of $15.1 million per season. Let’s assume $12 million is the starting point. If the Jets won’t top Clements’ deal by $2 million, which was the open market value for a corner not as good as Revis, it’s too low in my book. If the Jets want to top Asomugha’s annual salary by $100,000, they would need to tack on $3.2 million.
Let’s put $3.2 million into perspective for an NFL team. The salary cap in 2009 was worth around $127 million. That extra $3.2 million would count for 2.5% of the team’s cap space. Would it really be worth losing the best defender in the league over 2.5% of the cap? Also consider the cap goes up over time, meaning that $3.2 million would count for less a percentage of the team’s space over time. It’s really not that much more.
Now let me run down my responses to arguments I have heard a lot.
More after the jump.
A cornerback isn’t worth top dollar.
I would agree in every case aside from this one. I would even agree if Revis was playing in Eric Mangini’s system. This is the one player in the one system for which a corner really is that valuable. The Jets have Revis follow the other team’s top receiver around all game. Nnamdi Asomugha doesn’t do that. Neither does Charles Woodson.He eliminates elite offensive weapons by himself. For most teams to do that, it requires a second defender. That frees somebody else up to do something else, adding an extra player to the defense in essence. It also allows the Jets to roll their coverage and give defenders extra help on secondary targets. These are the guys who usually have an advantage when a defense focuses on shutting down the top option on the other team.
Revis makes every on the defense better. Against good run teams, the Jets don’t have to worry about stacking the box and being vulnerable deep. His coverage makes the pass rush better. Most people say the pass rush is what makes the secondary. Watch the tape again of Jets games last season. Tell me how many times a quarterback had time then eventually had a guy in his face because the coverage held.
Again, this is all because Rex Ryan has Revis follow around the other team’s top receiver and provides little help. It seems like a common sense thing to have your best corner do that, but nobody does it. Back in 1995, the 49ers schemed to keep Jerry Rice away from Deion Sanders in a game against the Cowboys. The Cowboys let it happen. Most other teams would have also. Rex understands how to get the most out of Revis’ ability. That’s why he’s so valuable.
On a side note, a team that trades for him and does not use him this way is wasting its money and his talent.
Revis only had one good season.
I don’t really know where this came from. Revis has played at a number one cornerback level since the second half of his rookie season. Last year I predicted before the opener he would handle Andre Johnson. There’s a reason for that. Perhaps the Jets did not get the same value out of him before 2009, but that again was a scheme issue. There is every reason to believe he would have done a great job playing in Rex Ryan’s system before last year. There’s a definite disconnect between when he started playing top notch ball and when the media took notice.
The team should take care of Nick Mangold and David Harris.
These are not mutually exclusive. Assuming the salary cap returns, there is likely space for all of the homegrown stars.
Rex Ryan made Revis.
I agree but not in the way you would put it. Ryan understood how to develop a scheme that made the most out of Revis’ abilities. The Jets wouldn’t get as much value out of him without the way Rex constructed the defense.
Revis has a contract. He should honor it.
The NFL is a brutal business. Contracts are not guaranteed. What if Darrelle got hurt seriously, came back, and played like Drew Coleman. Do you think the Jets would hesitate for a second to cut him? They wouldn’t honor his contract. He’s one injury away from losing the highest earning potential of his life. He’s also the seventh highest paid defensive back on the team this year. The bottom line to me is he outperformed his contract. He’s earned a new one.
If the team caves to Revis, they will have to cave whenever a player wants a new contract.
This is not the case. Revis is a unique talent. He brings something to the table that nobody else does. This is a special case.
He shouldn’t be rewarded for holding out while guys like Mangold and Harris are in camp working hard for the team.
In an ideal world, this would be correct. The world isn’t a fair place, though. You can work hard for the same employer for three decades, do nothing wrong, and still get a pink slip when the company decides it wants to save some money. That’s not fair. Neither is life in the NFL.
The Jets are trying to put together a winning football team. It’s not about what’s fair. They took the moral high ground with Pete Kendall. What did it get them? The answer is a dysfunctional offensive line, a quarterback facing such consistent pressure, Chad Pennington, that he lost all confidence, and a 4-12 season. I’d rather have a team that wins than a team that takes the moral high ground.
I understand many of you will disagree with my perspective. I know for a fact some of the other terrific writers you will read on the site do. That is all right. A diversity of opinions is good for a site like this.
I just think the Jets should do what it takes to keep Revis in green and white. How many players actually impact the game every play they are on the field? Drew Brees does. Peyton Manning does. Tom Brady does. Chris Johnson does. Darrelle Revis is in this group. I don’t particularly care for the way he has handled this situation, but I also don’t want to see the Jets lose him. I'm not saying I necessarily think either side is sympathetic here. It's a billion dollar corporation against a millionaire athlete. If making him the highest paid corner in the game is the only way to keep Revis, though, I think the Jets should do it.
189 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Your 2.5% cap space is for 09. When the cap comes back, (and I think it will) there is talk that it could either be 20% higher, or 20% lower. If it is 20% lower, the Jets would be pretty screwed. You say there would be enough money to pay all the home grown players, but there is a lot of talent that needs to be payed that isn’t home grown. What if AlCROtraz has an amazing year? How could we split up the Revis Cro tandem? We also have Braylon or Holmes. We have to keep at least one of these guys, right?
Get busy winning or get busy losing.
The CBA is all about having a lower cap.
The owners of the Jets know what is on the mind of all owners of NFL teams. The owners want the players to get a smaller cut of the pie, maybe 10 to 20 % less. That means that the cap for each team will be reduced proportionately. That means if the Jets have a total payroll cap this year of 125 mill, next year it will be 112.5 mill. That is why there will be a lock-out next year, and everybody is so reluctant to give out lots of money this uncapped year, or extend contracts the way people thought they would. You can not understand the Revis situation without understanding thuis.
Yes, this.
This is my main sticking point. If we could afford to pay Revis whatever he wants and have enough left over to sign Harris, Mangold, and two of the three (or at least one) of Cro/Bray/Holmes then I say give Revis whatever he wants. If I were Woody or Mike T I would level with him in exactly this manner…“we’ll give you whatever you want up to the point at which it does not destroy our team. Do you want to destroy our team over the difference between being in the richest .1% of the population vs. the richest .01%? Do you? Is that how big your ego is and how greedy you are?”
One more thing
I would add that he would easily make up the difference in salary from advertising money related to being in NYC and being superbowl MVP.
There’s no way the cap goes down. No way. There’s too many fortunes being made to justify a lower cap. Football is thriving.
Revis is a special talent. He trumps everybody else. One year deals can be had every year. The cap prevents you from being able to accumulate top talent. As a result, you have to let good players go sometimes.
But you always do what you have to do to hang on to All Time great players.
This is why there will be no football next year.
The cap is at the core. It has already been proven that people will watch football even if it is played by scrubs. The owned have said they want to change the economics of the game. The players know it will effect all teams, so FA would also produce smaller paydays. As long as people watch football on TV the owners get that money. This is a mess.
A lot of good points John, some I agree with, some I dont
but this is the one I have the big problem with:
Revis has a contract. He should honor it.
The NFL is a brutal business. Contracts are not guaranteed. What if Darrelle got hurt seriously, came back, and played like Drew Coleman. Do you think the Jets would hesitate for a second to cut him? They wouldn’t honor his contract. He’s one injury away from losing the highest earning potential of his life. He’s also the seventh highest paid defensive back on the team this year. The bottom line to me is he outperformed his contract. He’s earned a new one.
NFL contracts have signing bonuses, and guaranteed money, of which Revis’ was 5 million and 11 million, the reason you negotiate these is to address that exact point, it’s known an NFL team can cut you. It’s what makes the NFL the best sport in the world. This is what he held out for to begin with (when he was a rookie), its what he signed, NFL players are not permitted to holdout (when they have a contract), on that simple fact he is 100% wrong, and completely unjustified.
um why do you think he's being fined, and is losing a year of free agency
they can’t stop it, but its certainly not permitted, your violating your contract.
I'm a people person
I just have this inate ability to read little nuances. I am like Monk I tell ya lol
España 2010 Campenoes del Mundo!!!
Recommended Reading
But i think its important to not only describe Revis as the best corner, but also as the best defender in the league.
Like John said, his impact on games is unparralelled.
you need to stop gassing him up
he’s good, he’s may be great, but he’s not Jordan, Woods or Gretzky. He’s not even Peyton. If he wants to get paid, he should show some good character and honor his contract.
I think the best he’ll ever be is a Ray Lewis like home team great. But he’s not going to get there because he’s making himself look so selfish with the type of people that he has speaking for him.
I’m not quite sure how this breaks down, but let’s look past this year. Say we give Revis the sum he’s asking for, and somehow manage to keep both Mangold (whom I think should be priority #1, and not just because of how he’s handled the situation either.) and David Harris… what happens next? Can the Jets afford to re-sign anyone else next year? Or do we go back to Cotchery as our number one receiver and a lack of depth at RB and CB?
So what are all these guys you want to keep going to be worth after this year? If they play the way we hope, we’re going to lose a lot of them anyway.
But lets not forget just how great Revis is. Lets not forget the secondary we rolled into Indy with in the AFCC. And how good we were without Jenkins and with Scott on a bum wheel. Revis lets Rex have the luxury to do a lot of things.
Rex can put together a number one defense with Revis and not a lot else. It remains to be seen what Rex can do with this team without Revis.
True, and I am concerned about that. The Ravens have been my #2 team to root for for a very long time, and the one thing about Rex’s defensive scheme is the vulnerability against quick-thinking quarterbacks. It was true with Baltimore and it would probably remain true here. Revis obviously makes all the difference in the world there, and I’d rather have him back than any other guy, buuuuuuut… I feel like the future of this team lies with the offense. And I’d ideally like us to have something in the way of a decent receiver left for Sanchez to throw to after the smoke clears. Holmes is my personal choice, but either way, there’s nothing that regresses a QB faster than having his only viable target double covered all day. Hence the concern.
Basically I want my cake and I want to eat it too. YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT? :)
by SioneBAAOOOHA on Aug 10, 2010 6:04 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm not one of those people
that think Rex made Revis but I do not subscribe to the theory that Revis is making Rex. I find that it’s a mutually beneficial relationship where both parties really need eachother in order to be the best they can be.
What did the 5 fingers say to the face?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7CBwX1891A
HaHaHaHa!
by Lord Smackington on Aug 11, 2010 7:36 PM EDT up reply actions
I'll put money on it that the Jets and Revis bang out a contract either right before or right after the last preseason game
Get busy winning or get busy losing.
The issue isn't whether Revis deserves to be the highest paid cornerback
He is the best and deserves to be paid like it, but right now the Jets have the upperhand in negotiations. If Revis holds out he will forgo a yr of FA. If there is a lockout he will not have pay for 2 seasons. The Jets can simply say screw you Revis, when you decide to play again call us back. No team is going to give up a ton of high picks to get you AND pay you $15 Million/yr. The only card Revis holds is that the Jets are going for it all this season and him holding out will hurt them. However I think the Jets have enough depth at CB and upgraded their pass rush and offense that they can overcome his absence.
Can't do it
Why are the Jets not giving him the money? After the heat they took from getting rid of Jones, Leon and Alan F they could use a nice easy negoation. If they were even close there is no doubt in my mind the Jets would ge this done to put the team in a better light.
.
The Jets are scared of something wether it be not being able to sign other players or sending out the right message ect. Either way the comments that came out today are scary no matter how this process turns out.
.
I really don’t think the Jets will meet Revis asking price. So if we think he should get the money or not it’s not going to happen. I have said if there was no salary cap I would be okay to give Revis 20 million a year. There has got to be more to this story that we will prob not know.
Since the face been revealed the game got real
The more to the story is the guaranteed money. Its the one thing that matters to Revis after Washington. I suspect it is not even a dollars per year question. Its cold hard cash, in the pocket. And Woody doesn’t feel that given he has a contract for service in had, he has no real authentic reason to give a great deal of guaranteed money.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 10, 2010 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions
KV whats up
I can’t do the net page anymore not a big fan of the mod
Since the face been revealed the game got real
Hey, yeah. Who is the mod? Net Income?
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 10, 2010 6:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Ha.
Well, he’s been making a fool of himself lately. But there are some nice folks still there.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 10, 2010 6:26 PM EDT up reply actions
I know what you mean.
I suggested Sean May 2 moths ago and he shot me down hard, now that they signed he is all for it. Yeah I thought that was petty funny
Since the face been revealed the game got real
Exactly. He is playing “sports reporter”.
Anyways, football fans are smarter than basketball fans for some reason.
Back to the subject, I don’t know how the Revis contract issue can be discussed without discussing guaranteed money. Its the WHOLE disagreement. There is no second issue even.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 10, 2010 6:30 PM EDT up reply actions
LOL
Well I just heard that the Jets offer of 100 mil included only 5 mil guaranteed, I can’t say if thats true or not but if it is now I am not happy with the Jets and I have been on their side this whole time
Since the face been revealed the game got real
His agents are saying the Jets offered not one single dollar of guaranteed money. That’s bullbleep, as Westy would say.
and the home of the... JETS!!!
www.ganggreennation.com
I've tried to email Revis, but it just shuts down my computer.
Well I can't believe that would be true
but if it was they would look like such scumbags
Since the face been revealed the game got real
I think its true. And that is why the Washington thing is haunting the whole situation. Revis wants a guarantee.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 10, 2010 6:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Well
Leon did turn down 5 million a year , not sure how much is guar. but it had to be a good portion of it.
Since the face been revealed the game got real
Not sure about the guarantees, but he easily could have held out like Revis is doing now.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 10, 2010 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah but 5 mil for a change of pace back
seems like a good price for both sides, he wanted 7 I think. I mean no one in the NFL would sign a contract with no guar money
Since the face been revealed the game got real
He wanted Sproles money (6.6), but isn’t about the dollar amount. It also was how when he worked hard to get back, hard as hell, he was already outside of the plans for the team.
You cannot blame the team, but you have to see the whole narrative from a player’s perspective. Revis is saying right now: You are going to guarantee me some serious money, I’ve proved myself one of the best players in the league.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 10, 2010 6:47 PM EDT up reply actions
I am not against Revis
getting money, I just don’t want it to handicap the team or make it hard to get other players signed.
Since the face been revealed the game got real
I honestly don’t think that it is really about years and total dollars. They may be using the Asomugha contract as a negotiating position, but I strongly suspect that what Revis is after is guaranteed money.
I’m guessing that the Revis people were shocked to see that guaranteed money at ZERO (or near there) AND the contract numbers not being near Asomugha. Woody likely short changed them in both areas, leaving them no place to start the negotiation.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 10, 2010 7:04 PM EDT up reply actions
how do you know that's true
Why would Mike T be dumb enough to give Brick 35 Million guarenteed but 0 to your best player on defense? If the Revis camp is claiming they were lowballed like that they obviously were trying to win the media war.
by secret defense on Aug 10, 2010 8:58 PM EDT up reply actions
I am forgetting the ESPN reporter I heard interviewed a few days ago. He said that he talked to Revis himself a while back and that Revis had told him that the initial offer was ZERO guaranteed. Maybe this is disinformation, but the reporter seemed to be pretty sure of this, and spoke of how this is the one factor that the media is missing. If you listened to some of the leaks on the Jets side the issue of guaranteed money never comes up (and interviewers don’t ask about it).
Now why would they do this? Good question. I think part of it is that Woody feels that the renegotiation of a contract with so many years on it isn’t really “fair”, which is to say he is willing to throw Revis a bone, but there is no reason at all he should give up all his position of power that he fairly negotiated for. The holdout makes him even more resentful, I suspect.
It could be a media war thing on the Revis side, but Revis is a huge social media guy and he has been very silent. Further, aside from this one report I have seen NO media talking about this issue of guaranteed money at all, which suggests to me that its not a disinformation campaign.
My own feeling is that Woody low-balled on both (years/comp AND guaranteed money) so that the Revis team could not use the one to get the other. That would be smart. Of course I am guessing only here, but the absence of guaranteed money from the conversation suggests to me that something is quite problematic there.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 10, 2010 9:07 PM EDT up reply actions
it's all guesses at this point
we don’t know who offer or demanded what. What I heard is that “the fundamental difference” is total compensation. Revis wants something close to/exceeding Aso money, which is in the 15-16 M/yr. If he wants that kind of money for the next 6-7 years it would be insane because Aso didn’t even get that kind of money. Revis is owed 21M over the next 3 years, so he’ll need to be paid 25M for the next 3 yrs to average out to 16M/yr. Aso, from his rookie contract to his current contract will get 60M for 6 yr, and that’s counting the 17M unguarenteed in the last year of his current contract. No other CB even earns 10M/yr. So bascially Revis could be asking to be paid about 50% higher than the highest paid CB. Even taking into account the growth of player salaries over the years it’s still a ridiculous asking price.
by secret defense on Aug 10, 2010 9:56 PM EDT up reply actions
You are right, we are all guessing. My suspicion is that the total compensation is a canard, or a position taken in response to the zero dollars guarantee. That is not what was leaking out previously, and the tune has changed some.
My guess, and it is only a guess, is that Revis’ agent was very surprised by the Jets initial offer, and was forced with either the choice to go to an extreme in response, or cave a little.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
That makes the Jets look so bad
they can’t be that stupid, in fact they pay people to keep them from looking that stupid.
Since the face been revealed the game got real
Revis told an ESPN reporter sometime ago that there were ZERO dollars guaranteed in the original offer.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 10, 2010 6:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Woody thinks he has the hammer. That’s the thing. All the players saw what happened to Washington and said “where is our security”, Woody saw what happened to Washington and said “Damn I was smart!”
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 10, 2010 6:39 PM EDT up reply actions
yea that can't be right, maybe he's not counting the bonus...
or maybe the Jets are considering this years raise (from 1 million to what ever the new salary is say 13 million) as enough incentive.
I think that they do think exactly what you say, incentive enough. Woody is an old fashioned business man. He believes he has a contract for employment. He thinks whatever extra he gives is gravy for Revis.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 10, 2010 6:43 PM EDT up reply actions
I know. THAT is why this is such a huge problem. I had heard a few days ago from an ESPN radio interview reporter that the original offer included ZERO guaranteed dollars.It was a pure insult to Revis.
Its not about the total dollars or years. (You keep hearing Woody say that the money has not been the issue at all, what he is talking about is total dollars.) Its been about guaranteed money and nothing else. The great chasm between the two sides is there.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 10, 2010 6:36 PM EDT up reply actions
How many players actually impact the game every play they are on the field? Drew Brees does. Peyton Manning does. Tom Brady does. Chris Johnson does. Darrelle Revis is in this group.
Really, I don’t think Chris Johnson, should be in that group, and certainly not Revis. Neither has single handedly lead their team to victory, neither has an the impact on every single play the way the three QBs do. Revis can do his job to the fullest extent, and is the best CB in the league, but at most he’s shutting down one receiver or an area of the field.
Nobody single handedly leads a team to victory. Look at where Brees got the Saints went with a lousy defense. What Revis does like Johnson does is impact every single play when he is on the field even if it is hidden or subtle.
Editor-In-Chief
Gang Green Nation
SB Nation's Jets Blog
http://www.ganggreennation.com
The team should take care of Nick Mangold and David Harris.
These are not mutually exclusive. Assuming the salary cap returns, there is likely space for all of the homegrown stars.
I don’t know why or how you would dismiss this problem so briefly. The question isn’t whether there is “space” but the KIND of demand that Mangold and Harris CAN make if a guy with several years remaining on his deal can renegotiate a max deal. It is pretty simple. It isn’t whether Revis worth x amount of dollars in the abstract, it is whether he should be given x amount in the circumstances of his own leverage (being under contract with years left), in the context of negotiations with players with much more leverage. The Jets are counting Revis’s leverage because they are also pre-negotiating with the agents of both Mangold and Harris.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
Also the precedent that it sets...
If I was Mangold or Harris, and Revis got what he wanted today or tomorrow, I’d walk out of camp the very next day until I got what I wanted, hell every player should just do that, if your not happy with your pay just walk out the Jets will pay you.
Agreed. I think they are (or really, Woody is), afraid of the precedent. It makes very good sense in the specific case of Revis, which is why the Jets opened up the idea, but they really don’t want to be seen as a team you can just hold out on if you have a great year, regardless of contract length.
The way that Woody is looking at this, he has the hammer. They negotiated a contract BETTING that Revis was going to be really good. They bought x number of years at y dollars and it was a bet that came through. In fact it came through TOO well. They hit it rich, so they feel that should spread SOME of that wealth. But they cannot open up the idea that each and every contract BET they make can be renegotiated. The bet is made when the contract is signed. The team is betting that you are going to be worth much more than the amount signed for, and the player is betting that he is going to be worth less.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 10, 2010 6:23 PM EDT up reply actions
That is categorically false. The team is trying not to overpay. The player is trying not to be underpaid.
You are not reading closely.
That is categorically false. The team is trying not to overpay. The player is trying not to be underpaid.
Me:They bought x number of years at y dollars and it was a bet that came through.
When negotiating a contract the team is BETTING (betting is the key word here) that the player will perform at a level that is worth much more than the amount they are agreeing to pay him. I agree to pay you x, but your play will be worth x + extra. The player is betting the opposite.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 10, 2010 7:00 PM EDT up reply actions
You're not understanding what i'm saying.
The team is expecting that the player will outperform the contract. They are hoping they will, but not betting that they will. They are betting that they won’t overpay for their services.
Teams generally want to get it right. They don’t want to be exploitative. Same with the players. They don’t want to be overpaid, and carry the perception of being an underachiever.
Everybody is betting that they don’t get screwed.
The team is NOT expecting that the player will outperform.
They ARE.
If you sign a linebacker to a 1 mill a year contract and he out performs the 1 mil value and becomes a dominant pass rusher for a 10 mill value, that means you don’t have to spend, let us say 5 mill a year on two corners (because you have no pass rush), or 5 mill on a DE. You can spend that money elsewhere.
You want your players to outperform the value of their contract so that you can use the surplus of that value in constructing the team elsewhere. When a player UNDERPERFORMS the value of their contract, then you have to spend extra money elsewhere to make up for that lost value.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 10, 2010 7:16 PM EDT up reply actions
The team is expecting that the player will outperform the contract. They are hoping they will, but not betting that they will. They are betting that they won’t overpay for their services.
Its the same thing. The reason why it is a “bet” is that they are putting money down on the EXPECTED value of the services. When you buy a house you are “betting” that the value of the house exceeds the value you are purchasing it (this is the same thing has betting that you are not overpaying). When you buy a stock, same thing. If the value of their services fall below the price you are paying, you are, by definition, overpaying.
I don’t think you are seeing that when signing a contract with a player there is a projection of the value of their services into the future.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 10, 2010 7:12 PM EDT up reply actions
I see what you’re saying but I don’t agree. I don’t think that the amount of football contracts work the same way as homes and stocks.
With homes and stocks, the expected future value isn’t incorporated into the current contract the way it is with football players. Football players aren’t commodities in the sense you’re making it seem.
With homes, everyone knows that the price is likely to increase over time, but all that really matters is what you can sell it for today. Improvements and such aren’t factored. Same with stocks.
But with football players, their expected future value is incorporated into the current price. You’re projecting not only how good they are, but how good they will be, and how long they will be that good. All of that is considered in firguring out the current contract price. And both sides are trying to get it right, IMO.
With homes, everyone knows that the price is likely to increase over time, but all that really matters is what you can sell it for today. Improvements and such aren’t factored. Same with stocks.
But with football players, their expected future value is incorporated into the current price. You’re projecting not only how good they are, but how good they will be, and how long they will be that good.
Not at all. The “health” of a stock is related to the projected future performance of the stock. The price of the stock, to be simply about it, is reflection of the general estimation of how it will perform in the FUTURE. When you buy a stock you anticipate, or bet, that it will perform at a rate HIGHER than what you paid for it. The same exact thing occurs when you pay for a player.
What are missing, I believe, in the analogy, is the way in which all the players values have to be calculated into a future projection. You want players to outperform their value because on a defense – let’s say – the performances are linked. When you can “save” money by having players perform at a higher rate than their value on a defense, that means that you ALSO save money on other players – that is, you can fill in with less expensive talent. Now if this less expensive talent – those bets – out perform their price, you are even BETTER off, and possibly you can add an impact player (like a Pace) you otherwise could not.
If all your players merely perform to their value, if you get no bargains, if all your rookies play like rookies, you are stuck. This is why ever replenishing with youth is so important (and why the Jets let go of proven talent). You have to keep making fresh bets on over-performance so that you can have the flexibility to get a game changer.
And this is the danger of paying heavily for a big name. The bet is a bit one-sided, something like even money. The most that you can get is pretty much what you paid for. Big dollars, and big performance. But of course, you can also lose big if that big bet gets injured or dramatically under performs.
All of that is considered in firguring out the current contract price. And both sides are trying to get it right, IMO.
Yes. But it is still a bet on future performance. The team is wagering on the percentage of chance that the player will be really really good. That is why “upside” figures so much in youth. They are looking for the dramatic over-performance that can swing the flexibility of the team. Otherwise teams would just be looking for safe-money bets (which some teams do). The best teams are good at locating where a youth will vastly out perform his contract.
The same happens with stocks. You look for company’s whose price has under-estimated the potential for future performance.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 10, 2010 8:39 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
To put it a different way, this betting logic is the reason why Faneca was let go (and had to be let go really). He was a safe bet. His contract number he would probably perform CLOSE to. They were not going to lose much value on Faneca (despite all the talk about his pass defense problems).
But the Jets are heading into rough waters financially. They are going to lose their advantage of over performing young guys (Revis, Mangold, Harris) soon. Soon these guys are going to be paid something roughly equal to what they are worth – or, they certainly are not going to over-perform their value to some incredible degree. The Jets needed to “re-bet”. They needed to bet again on the left side with Ducasse (they also had to re-bet at safety). They needed to get someone who is going to out-perform their dollar value.
Isolated by itself it doesn’t make sense. They are poised for a Superbowl run there was very little chance that Ducasse would out perform Faneca straight up. They seemed to be risking a lot. But they had to bet NOW because they were about to lose their value edge on three prime players.If they were smart about it, and made the right bet, Ducasse suddenly becomes a very cheap lineman for quite a while, playing high above his potential. But in any case, the window for a new bet was there and they had to take it.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 10, 2010 8:50 PM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
Rec'd for awesomeness.
I see what you’re saying now and you’re definitely right from the team’s point of view. Ultimately they’re looking to add pieces that the market undervalues.
But do you think the same holds true for the players? Do you think that they are betting on being overcompensated?
Hey thanks. It feels good to make some sense.
I think with players the whole extra thing is fear of injury. Players are confidence guys, they always believe that they can excel, and mostly look at what other players make, laterally, to see what they are worth (and because of that they probably over-estimate their worth). So with players that can demand it, the guaranteed money is the big hidden thing. Just knowing that when you sign that line a certain amount is going into your bank account is huge. This is their insurance policy against “under performing” their contract. The one thing they feel that they don’t have control over, injury.
So, in a sense it is a contest between teams betting on the future skills of a player, his performance value, vs. players trying to lock down a guarantee against injury, all the while keeping an egotistical eye upon the money peers get.
The team says: You are not very good, believing that he can out perform his dollar value.
The player says: I am just as good as anyone who plays my position of my age, believing it, but worried that injury will reduce his value to near nothing.
Its an agreement. The player allows the team to bet on his future excellence (in the relative short term) in compensation for some kind of protection (even if that protection is a chance to prove future worth). They allow this bet knowing that IF the team is right and the player performs great over market, he will be rewarded with the power to name he own value to the market to some degree. The team has every incentive to delay this transfer of worth for as long as possible.
It is then that the team decides: Do I want to make this guy an even money safe bet major piece because of his skills, or do I just want to re-bet and get guys who might out perform their value again. Its always a balancing act of how many guys on your roster are safe-bet, big piece guys, and how many guys are out performing their value. When you get a guy like Gholston though, it throws a huge wrench into the balance, and you always have guys on whose bet you lose.
That is why talent evaluators and coaches are so damn important. You have to keep winning those bets on value making up the greater portion of your team. That is why teams like New England have been so good for so long, and why the Jets are good now.
I actually learned some of this by listening to Jack Kent Cooke owner of the Lakers some time ago. He is a huge poker player and resorted to card playing to explain how a franchise stays on top for a long time. He said no matter how good the players you have on your roster, its like having a number of chips. Every year you lose a chip on each and every player because that player is older, closer to a new contract or closer to a diminishment of skills. You have to keep betting otherwise you’ll end up with no chips, ie, players on the back end of contracts not worth what you are paying, or players ending their cheap contracts and going somewhere else.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 10, 2010 9:33 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
Seriously. Awesome stuff.
Please put these comments into a post. Some of the best stuff i’ve every read. Seriously.
Awe shucks. Honestly though, I appreciate you taking the time to read through my thoughts, especially as we started out in what appeared to be disagreement. Sometimes on forums and blogs we stop thinking or listening when we disagree. I do that too sometimes. And you didn’t at all. Pretty cool.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
Thanks Crackback.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 10, 2010 9:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed with crack,
rec’d for awesomeness. That was really a great way to explain something I would have butchered, but I totally agree. It’s part of what is so frustrating about rooting for the Mets. It’s a bit different w/o a cap, but they had years of paying Jose Reyes and David Wright basically no money for top 5 value at their respective positions in baseball, and weren’t able to capitalize on this and use those saved dollars to make a run for a championship.
Beautifully said. Those were golden opportunity years.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 11, 2010 2:22 AM EDT up reply actions
I think that at the very worst the team wants to get the player at value, but they are absolutely hoping the player performs above value.
Completely. Because if they do, they don’t have to spend money elsewhere. Revis, at a cheap number, means that you can cut the field in half and bring in a less expensive SS who can hit, for instance, etc., etc.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 10, 2010 7:18 PM EDT up reply actions
actually
I don’t really think you can put a dollar amnt on what Revis does for the team. If he asked for a 250 million dollars plus a cut of ticket sales, I think his play alone would justify it. Having said that should the Jets give that to him as well if he asks for it?
The only reasonable thing to do is to compare his value to similar type players & deals in the market. The Asomugha deal I don’t find relevant, Davis must have been of his meds during that deal. The Clements and Samuel deal are the closest thing to comparison but they didn’t have 3 yrs left to go on their deals.
What did the 5 fingers say to the face?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7CBwX1891A
HaHaHaHa!
by Lord Smackington on Aug 11, 2010 7:51 PM EDT up reply actions
i'll post this again here
“Ryan pointed out that he has coached top defenses without elite players before, like with Baltimore in 2005, when he lost Ray Lewis for 10 games and Ed Reed for six games”.
Like he said before, it would be a lot easier with revis but we can do it without him too. After hearing how without revis they can’t win and revis this and that ..im sure the players will have extra incentive to step up their game. and enough with this “a team can cut a player bla bla bla”. the player gets plenty of money in their bonus so they’ll be fine if they’re cut. and it goes both ways, if he has an awful year is he going to give back money or rework his contract like gholston did? “if i get hurt i wont get paid coz they’ll cut me”..damn right! why should you get paid millions to sit at home.
After hearing how without revis they can’t win and revis this and that ..im sure the players will have extra incentive to step up their game.
They also will realize that no matter how well they play – even if they are MVP of the league level – they will not get there money from the Jets out of any sense of loyalty.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 10, 2010 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions
His contracts not up...
its not even in its last year. If you sign him now, your showing them all you have to do is not show up to work, and you too will be paid.
Agreed. But there is a consequence on team psychology. You have to understand that part as well. The move with Washington was technically correct, but it probably will end up costing them millions upon millions.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 10, 2010 6:24 PM EDT up reply actions
See I don't see the Washington move like that at all...
of course I’m not on the team. Leon never proved he could be an every down back, they offered him fair money, I think more than he deserved (up until that point), he was the stupid one who didn’t sign.
I think what happened to Washington completely freaked out every teammate of his. They saw that on any single play they can potentially lose millions. I’m not saying that the Jets were not technically correct, but they made a mistake in team relations. I’m not ever sure that Revis would be holding out demanding guaranteed money (as he is), if not for the Washington event.
And the Faneca issue – the WAY it was handled – also freaked a few people out, among them Mangold who will be making contract demands soon.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 10, 2010 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Washington was also a special case though...
football injuries happen, it just really sucked for him because of the timing. It’s also complicated for him because he was a 4th round draft pick so hadn’t gotten any money yet. Revis is a bit different because he has already gotten paid first round money.
I do worry about the the Faneca impact a bit more.
Washington could have held out just as Revis is now.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 10, 2010 6:44 PM EDT up reply actions
He could have, but I don’t think he was ever going to get more money than they offered. Unless of course, he came in last year, and took over the starting role, and finally showed he could carry the load, but he was on pace for something like 150-650, typical Leon, which is not worth more than 5 mil per in my book.
You are missing my point, but that is okay. I’m not arguing the technical fairness of the deal. I’m talking about the impact that a decision (and events) has on future negotiations with other players.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 10, 2010 7:20 PM EDT up reply actions
faneca got cut and he got another job somewhere else. what’s there to worry if you’re a player? not the first time a team cut a player in a similar situation. These are grown men. washington got a fair deal, he should have signed it.
Its how he was cut. He was having dinner with Mangold.
Hey, if you don’t care, you don’t care, but you have to negotiate with Mangold coming up.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 10, 2010 6:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Also it was why he was cut, I mean you can make a case that his pass blocking had become a liability, but he went to the pro-bowl, it appeared to be just a simple salary dump to a player that was a leader.
You here that about TJ too, but he really wasn’t making that much, I actually think he had an awful year despite the stats, and needed to be cut.
I think that the players bought so HARD into team Rex, and played so much like soldiers that they woke up shocked by a few of the off-season moves. Its a pretty stark shift, and even if you know it is “all business”, when you play like they did last year you are not ready for every man for himself.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 10, 2010 7:26 PM EDT up reply actions
every player and gm know there is no real loyalty in sports. This is the business side of things and they all know that. its called negotiations. or maybe you just want woody to hand out blank checks and let the players decide how much they should get.
You can “know” this, but team play is all about forgetting that.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 10, 2010 6:45 PM EDT up reply actions
the fact that this poll is 50/50...
…tells me were around the right amount
I don't entirely disagree but...
the fact of the matter is, Rex was the architect of arguably one of the most brutal defenses of our generation with the Ravens. And Revis wasn’t on that team. It is a bit of an over reaction to assume our defense will buckle without Revis. If Rex was able to find a way to utilize Revis to the best of his ability, he can do it again with another player. I also think under Mangini, despite Revis’ talent, the scheme would not allow him to turn into the player that could even seriously attempt to command the compensation he’s asking for. In that sense, he has Rex to thank for that too. Much like Brady/Cassell, Revis (as far as we have seen) is a system player, and many other teams simply can’t use him the way Rex does. And who’s to say another player won’t step up big time? If say, Cromartie has the big year we expect him to, and Kyle Wilson steps up big time and produces similar numbers Revis did in his rookie year, Revis’ stock falls quite a lot. He loses ALL bargaining power, and his ability to get top dollar diminishes significantly. Revis would be a fool to sit this season. And I think the 12 Million mark is very fair. It is a team game and never does one player make the team. Ask Peyton Manning…
by TeamJets on Aug 10, 2010 6:42 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Another reason why Revis is vitally important: he's a known commodity.
I am as excited as anyone about the coming season and beyond. But lets not get too drunk on the cool-aid.
We have no idea what we’re goingto get out of a lot of players we’re going to be relying upon heavily.
Sanchez — what if he doesn’t progress? Then no matter how good aour receivers are, our offense will stink.
Greene — what if he really is injury prone and doesn’t see the field for half the season?
Tomlinson — what if he’s not only as bad as he was last year, but he contiues his downward progression?
Cromartie — what if he’s not at all as good as we hoped, and is just more of the same as he was in Boltville?
Wilson — even Revis wasn’t reliable until midway through his rookie season, lets not get crazy and think this kid is gonna be shut down while covering the more difficult slot position.
Left Guard — what if Faneca was actually an All Pro in game and not just name? How will this effect our line play, and running game (esp if Greene is hurt and LD sucks), and passing game (esp if Sanchez is still struggling)?
Holmes — what if he smokes pot and is lost for the year?
We need to stop operating under the assumption that all these guys will play the way we hope them to. Rex does tend to pufferate things. He talked big on Gholston last off-season too. He told us Kerri was going to be as good as Ed Reed all last off season. Lets take believe every ounce of hype that the coaches want us to.
We need Revis.
Cro is a man cover corner plain and simple. Thats why the Jets got him. The chargers didn’t feature what Cro did well in their system.
Since the face been revealed the game got real
Agreed, but there’s no telling exactly how good he will be. He’s got good ball skills and all but he’s not a shut down guy. And what good is he if he’s not consistent? Yeah he might get a pick one play but give up a TD the next. And without Revis, he’ll have a rookie opposite? No thanks. I’d much rather have Revis and roll coverage to Cro to minimize the damage of his failed gambles.
Heard he’s gotten some incredible picks so far this off-season. Also heard about him getting burned for multiple TDs too.
I am with you so much would rather have Revis
but I mean if they don’t have him they still have to play the games
Since the face been revealed the game got real
Of course. But you’re risk of sucking goes up exponentially without him. AT least with him, and all those other guys sucking, you’re still a pretty good team.
Could it be that the Jets thought is:
Let these new Jets all become “men” in Revis’s absence, let Wilson earn his chops at corner, let Cro try out being a shutdown corner, maybe even up to the 3rd game. THEN bring Revis in.
If we are sucking (if Cro struggles and Wilson can’t cover) Revis comes in as a savior, and the whole defense suddenly is put into right place with the guys in the proper positions.
BUT, if we are thriving (and the first three games are tough), Revis comes in, and suddenly the defense has a chance to be one of the best defenses ever, with Cro and Wilson feeling VERY high on themselves.
The Jets don’t seem to worry about the first few games. They had Pace out last year, they took Holmes this year knowing his suspension. They want to time their greatness for the end of the year.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 10, 2010 8:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Thats extremely risky. Why risk losing 3 games off the bat? If you give away those games, and need Revis just to be competitive, you might throw away the season.
I agree. But Rex has a way of over-estimating his team, and over-estimating what he can do on defense. He pretty much admits that he lost at least two games last year because he blindly believed that his defense could stop someone anytime they really wanted to.
I wouldn’t do it, but the Jets are weird.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 10, 2010 9:09 PM EDT up reply actions
No you can even continue there...
Revis - what if last year was special, and he’s only the good corner he had been the two years prior to that.
Edwards - what if he is the headache everyone in Cleveland claims he is, and don’t forget the drops
Jenkins - what if he cant make it through a season, or even a game
The whole season has ifs, and buts, and Revis is no more a lock than anyone else, one great season does not mean your automatic.
Revis a lock.
Last year he shut down number 1s. The scheme was designed around that. Thats not a fluky occurence.
The year before last he was an All Pro.
REVIS- what if he gets injured, or with a big contract isn’t playing to his potential, or was a one year wonder, or found with weed in his car. So many ifs you present. There is if on every player in the NFL, anything can happen anytime.
Right now theres, a much higher probablity that all of things will happen than there are of the ifs you present with Revis.
We have no real reason to expect the type of seasons we’re hoping for from the guys i presented, other than puffery quotes from the coaches. Who are an extension of management, who are clamoring to sell PSLs.
Revis hasn’t gotten in any trouble off the field in his career. And he has been durable. And he has done nothing but progress exponentially from one season to the next.
Revis won't get Nnamdi money because of the labor situation
I have to believe that there is extreme pressure on the Jets from other owners to not give into Revis’ demands to get paid similar to (or more than) Nnamdi. Ownership is presenting a united front right now (collusion). Almost every decision this offseason has been a “screw you” to players (outside of high draft pick contracts, but those are always insane and will be addressed in the new CBA). Ask Mankins/McNeil/V.Jackson how standing up to ownership is working out for them this year.
I think the Jets can only move $$ around (a la Chris Johnson) and not upset the other owners. Other factors besides cap and salary are at play here.
Can't say if thats true or not but I can't believe the Jets will mess their team and the relationship
with their star player for the other owners in the league…
With that said if that is true if the other owners say" if you give Revis money we will never trade with you again" (we all know what T does on draft day) that would be a catch 22
Since the face been revealed the game got real
Wow, Woody right now on ESPN60 is sounding like a bratty child.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
Some of you don't get it
I’ve been a GGN reader for some time now and never felt compelled to comment on anything posted by any contributor or commenter no matter how much I personally agreed or disagreed with an opinion. However I had to comment on this subject. Some fans are in support of the holdout that Revis is presently conducting, and seem to excuse the fact that he has 3 years remaining on his contract. They want to point out what happened to Leon Washington, who gambled and lost. He as offered a contract that HE chose not to sign. Crackback and Troy O feels that no matter what effects it may have on the team’s future, Darrelle Revis NEEDS to get paid. IMHO You don’t give away future flexibility for one individual, no matter how elite they are.
On a more interesting note I find it curious that Revis’s agent ( Neil Schwartz) is the same agent for Vincent Jackson (Chargers) who is also holding out. AND why is it only Neil Schwartz’ three clients (Kendall, Baker, and Revis – all former and current Jets) are the only players ever that we’ve heard the Jets approached about a new deal? Something just isn’t right here.
Some fans are in support of the holdout that Revis is presently conducting, and seem to excuse the fact that he has 3 years remaining on his contract. They want to point out what happened to Leon Washington, who gambled and lost. He as offered a contract that HE chose not to sign.
If you are in any way referring to me, I am in no way “in support” of Revis’s holdout. I am only pointing out his likely motivations and influences.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 10, 2010 7:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Wasn’t referring to you kv. I think you present a valid argument
by DatJetFanDude on Aug 10, 2010 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Thanks. Just checking.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 10, 2010 8:41 PM EDT up reply actions
AND why is it only Neil Schwartz’ three clients (Kendall, Baker, and Revis – all former and current Jets) are the only players ever that we’ve heard the Jets approached about a new deal? Something just isn’t right here.
Good point. Isn’t this the same guy who finally got Kendall traded by threatening not to allow the Jets to see potential free agents he represented in the future?
and the home of the... JETS!!!
www.ganggreennation.com
I've tried to email Revis, but it just shuts down my computer.
I disagree. Some individuals you take of because they are so intical to your teams success. Players like Manning and Brady need to be taken care of. Im not saying that Revis should be paid on their level, he shouldn’t, but his impact on defense is unrivaled and warrants unrivaled compensation.
I have no problem with him holding out because he’s woth what he’s asking for and bc NFL contracts are toilet paper. Whenever a team decides a player is no longer worth what theyre paying, the can just cut him (injured or not). Im fine with that. I am also fine with a player who’s being grossly under paid holding out. I think its fair.
I think that Revis is worth what he’s asking for. I think he’s a special player, the we’ve never seen before. Ithink the Jets should pay what he’s asking (approx 16M per), even if its at the expense of Mangold and Harris. But i also wouldn’t be mad at the team if we let him go, retain Mangold and Harris, and are just as good without him.
But I don’t agree with the apparently popular sentiment that its right for the Jets to screw the guy because we want a Superbowl. Not only screw him, but that he’s somehow a jerk if he doesn’t let us screw him. Because the team, and our dreams for a Superbowl is more important than his family’s financial security.
“I have no problem with him holding out because he’s woth what he’s asking for and bc NFL contracts are toilet paper.”
Not exactly true. Teams are stuck with paying out guaranteed money, whether the player sucks (JaMarcus) or gets injured (Dumerveil). I agree that Revis’s contract length is too long. I think rookie contracts should be shorter, but that’s what’s being bargained for by the players in the new CBA (I think).
Not only should they be shorter, but they should be standardized. I also don’t really think they need a cap.
Baseball thrives without a cap, and thats with 91 home games to try and sell out per season. A good big market team can take advantage of smaller market teams because they can sell out more often.
In football, its much easier to sell out bc there’s only 8 games. Plus, teams are forced to sell out in order avoid being blacked out. I really don’t think that smaller market teams would be at a competitive disadvantage. Plus with the turnover in football, teams won’t often be saddled with bad long-term contracts.
Really no need for a cap in football.
But he held out 21 days for that extra year
Revis wanted a 6 year deal we can’t forget this.
Since the face been revealed the game got real
I'm sorry, but $40m+ over his first six years in the league
is not “screwing him.” [“40m+” includes an assumed band aid of $4m for this year] He would then be in line for a free agent contract worth at least another $40m+ guaranteed. But if that’s your definition of screwing someone then we’ll just have to disagree.
You mention that some people like Brady and Peyton “you take care of.” Peyton is in his last year and he wants and deserves a new contract now, but Indy isn’t taking care of him. Brady is only making $6.5m this year!! You don’t see either of these two holding out, but somehow Revis is the one getting “screwed.”
So what’s really going on here? Revis has played three years and has held out twice. His agent’s clients include(d) Vincent Jackson, Kendall, and Baker. His uncle, Sean Gilbert, had a very acrimonious hold out and he’s also giving Revis advice. At some point, you have to acknowledge that Revis is the problem.
So, Revis is just using the leverage that he has a right to use. I think that sucks for the Jets players and fans, but that’s his right. The problem for Revis is that the Jets also have rights! They don’t have to trade him and can fine him and claim back salary for the time of the hold out. Hell, if Revis holds out and doesn’t play this year and there’s a lockout next year, then I hope we make him play for the $5m in 2012. That is our right. This could end up working out very badly for a guy who could easily make $80m+ over his career if he never held out.
by Myr on Aug 10, 2010 9:25 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
As it has been pointed out, that is why they get paid signing bonuses and a portion of their contracts are guaranteed. It is the trade off, football players get paid significant money at their signing BEFORE a football is snapped BECAUSE owners can cut them.
I believe Revis is an above average player who greatly benefits from Rex Ryan’s system. If you think the Jets are screwing Revis for wanting him to fulfill a contract HE HELD OUT FOR, but willing to renegotiate on good faith, then we disagree.
I guess we have a fundemental disagreement then. Its not really relevant that held out for the contract if he overperformed on it. You’re trying to make it seem like the Jets did him a favor, so nows he owes them to play for less than he’s worth. They didn’t do him any favors, they benefitted tremendously from that contract. Now they want to re-do the deal. Why do they deserve a discount again?
They offer a bonus for awesomeness. Theyre saying, “Hey you want to play here, because we’ll pay you even if you get hurt.” Well thats how the practice developed, anyway. Now its an industry norm, and Revis wants it. I say give it to him. Its a risk, but so is losing him.
But what you are not quite appreciating is that it was a bet.
When they signed the Jets were saying (to themselves) I think you are going to be better than this contract. And Revis was saying (to himself) I want protection in case I am not better than this contract.
The Jets won that bet hands down. The only reason why they are talking about renegotiating a bet they already won is that they understand that if they do not give Revis a break they may not get a chance to sign him again.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 10, 2010 8:59 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree, but now the dynamic shifted.
Now Revis is not only betting that he’s that good. He’s also betting that the team can’t win without him. He’s leveraging his position as much as possible and the team has to pay much more attention to his demands than they do to the avergae player at his position.
Completely. Revis is taking advantage of a loop hole in the system – and it was further exacerbated by Rex last year. The GREAT thing about Rex is that he sells his players on how great they are, and he sells US on how great they are, and he gets it all whipped up into an incredibly high level of play. He got Revis into a zone where he was legitimately a defensive player of the year.
What Revis was able to do (or is trying to do) is trade in that extra value, the value that Rex gave him – not only due to his system, but also due to his mouth, his image, and force re-evaluation of himself as a player to the team. I don’t believe for a minute that this team cannot win without Revis, but…
…the one thing that Revis has in his hand is the NEXT contract. Teams can bet low, but if they alienate their players they can lose out on any opportunity to resign a special talent. The system works great with most position players, but because of the nature of football there are certain difference maker positions. QB is one, pass-rusher is one, and in the last few years shut down corner is one (that is why the pursuit of Cromartie was so brilliant). In Rex’s system, its even more the case. What is great about Rex’s system is that the “pass-rusher” who is the primary need for any defense (and hence is coveted and over-priced) is minimized, and the shutdown corner is KING.
Its not so much that Revis is betting is not so much that the Jets cannot win without him (although he might have strategy that they are facing 3 difficult opponents right off), its even more he is leveraging all the extra value that is given to him as the best corner in Rex’s system.
The Jets were no fools though. They saw it coming. They went and got Cromartie, and they got Wilson. They got their premium corner (possibility), and their cheap bet for greatness, all to minimize the power that Revis was accruing. They were playing hardball sine the draft. And it works both ways. Either Revis compromises and the team has a freakish collection of corners in a corner-crazy scheme, or Revis holds out, and the slack is picked up by the addition of a pass rush with Taylor and a full year of Pace.
The team is in a tough position, but it has been readying itself for it for quite a while. I just hope that it doesn’t get personal between Revis’ agent and Woody. If its Mr. T the Jets will find the reasonable compromise for the team and the player. But if it gets to Woody vs. the agent the guaranteed money might really evaporate. This is the thing, when an extremely and accomplished wealthy man like Johnson faces off with an agent who is full of threats it comes into the interest of the owner to make the agent look bad as a matter of contest, to not let him get whatever he told his client he could easily get. It isn’t only about the player any more. And the agent then just has to keep upping the ante so he doesn’t lose face. I don’t think it would go there, but with egos it can, and that would be the worst since the Jets and Revis are pretty much a match made in heaven.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 10, 2010 9:58 PM EDT up reply actions
JB get this guy to write for GGN!!!!!
I agree with everything you said, except that they can win without Revis. If by win you mean making the playoffs this year.
I just don’t think Cro is shut down. He’ll make plays, but he’ll give them up too.
And I don’t think Wilson will bereliable for at least half the season. And when he is, he might good but he might not be shut-down.
Its too risky to chase a Superbowl without Revis.
If by win you mean making the playoffs this year.
I just don’t think Cro is shut down. He’ll make plays, but he’ll give them up too.
But this is the thing. Several parts of the defense are better than last year. It can still be a top three or four defense.
1. Jenkins (hopefully all year). Last year he was thought to be the Revis of the defense, the one guy we could not lose.
2. An edge rusher now in Taylor. He doesn’t have to do much. It changes the pressure which last year the Jets could only muster with 7.
3 The whole linebacking core having played a year in a difficult to know defense. The communications should be expert and even faster.
4. A Ryan defense is designed to turn the ball over and score, and actually they didn’t do this very well last year. Expect at least a modest improvement here.
You add to this that the offense should take some pressure off the defense.
1. Last year for stretches Sanchez was horrible. There should be a sophomore leap in performance. Turnovers (a nightmare for defenses), should be down.
2. Weapons. Obviously there are more weapons of offense, the team would really be a disappointment if it didn’t score more points than last year, and have more sustained drives. This changes what is needed from the defense. It doesn’t have to be quite so dominant.
3. Ryan learned something last year and should be smarter coach.
So, while Cromartie cannot simply take away the top receiver which is a great advantage, the overall scheme capacity of the defense, which involves creating confusion from unexpected places (communication), and pressure on the QB, might be actually improved. The team should be better against the run with Jenkins and Pool, and better at pass rush. I think that this can compensate for the difference between Cromartie and Wilson vs. Revis and Sheppard. Throw in the offense, and you have a good case that this team (without Revis) is slightly better than last year’s team.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
There’s just to much hope involved in that equation, IMO.
1. Jenkins — we still needed to blitz last year when we had him.
2. Taylor — is on the decline. According to phinfans, he was absent for the second half of last season. If his tank is empty, he’s a non-factor. I know the hope is that he’ll be relegated primarily to passing downs and should be stronger and fresher and more effective when he does so. But its still more hope than it is fact at this point.
3. LBs were pretty stellar as it is last year. Any improvement is likely to only be marginal.
4. I think that although this area might improve without Revis (stress the word might), even if it does, we probably will give up more plays in the passing game as well. So any gain is likely to be offset.
Offense
1. The hope was that Sanchez merely had to play cometently this year, like he did in the playoffs, and hopefully progressing a little more once in the playoffs. But there’s an equal possibility that he’s a bust. We have to acknowledge that fact. I think he will be better, but he will have to be a lot better if there’s no Revis, and i don’t think he’ll be ready to carry the team.
2. Weapons. Are irrelevant if Sanchez continues to struggle.
3. Ryan will definitely be a better coach. This is something we can have confidence in.
4. Greene — he has the most pressure from an offensive standpoint. He has to produce and make the running game a weapon to be reckoned with. If he pulls up lame, the season could be doomed, even with Revis.
5. Left Guard — cannot be a liability in the run game. If it is, it puts adds pressure to the defense rather than takes it away.
So yeah, if we hit on all our hopes, we can still be good without Revis. Especially if the running game stays strong and Sanchez makes a big leap. But if guys like Taylor and LD are really empty, and if Sanchez doesn’t make much of a jump, and if Greene proves to be injury prone, all of which are very probable, we will stink without Revis.
1. Jenkins — we still needed to blitz last year when we had him.
Sure. But we should have him for more plays (upgrade).
2. Taylor — is on the decline.
Still an upgrade, even if only slight – unless you completely distrust the Jets’ ability to examine film, which means that the trouble is far worse than only Taylor.
3. LBs were pretty stellar as it is last year. Any improvement is likely to only be marginal.
Well, they won’t be worse. In fact, given the complexity of the defense one should assume at least slight improvement. Upgrade.
1. The hope was that Sanchez merely had to play cometently this year, like he did in the playoffs, and hopefully progressing a little more once in the playoffs. But there’s an equal possibility that he’s a bust.
You think there is a good chance that Sanchez is a bust??? You think he is going to have an equally bad year? Makes little sense to me. He doesn’t have to play great or even inspired, just less turnovers. Upgrade.
2. Weapons. Are irrelevant if Sanchez continues to struggle.
Absolutely not. He will struggle less with more open receivers. Higher quality means that there is greater stress on the defense. How can that be a bad thing? There is a trickle down effect when your third best receiver, slot, was your opening day #1 receiver last year? its not enough to say “well Sanchez might suck”. He doesn’t have to do great things, just not turn the ball over quite so much. There is no reason to assume he is going to fumble the ball so much, or throw INTs at the same rate.
4. Greene — he has the most pressure from an offensive standpoint.
A pretty negative assessment. He has two big full backs blocking for him (reports on Conners are very good). He has a full compliment of receivers spreading the field which makes running much easier. And he has a year of experience. There is a little more pressure, but with a diverse offense that doesn’t have to run the ball there is reason why this is a weakness.
5. Left Guard — cannot be a liability in the run game.
Sure. One downgrade on offense, 4 upgrades. Plus Faneca was their worse pass blocker.
So yeah, if we hit on all our hopes, we can still be good without Revis.
I’m actually not an overly optimistic Jet fan. I’m just assuming some basic things that should be assumed by a fan of any team. Rookie players the next year will play better. Players in the system a second year should play better. Adding proven offensive talent makes it easier to QB. Adding a passing game makes it easier to run. This is just reasonable. Are all these things going to happen, no. But last season had some extremely dramatic bad luck things happen which you just assume will not this time. The core of the defensive line was lost. The most dynamic playmaker on offense was lost. The set backs should be assumed to be less.
Really, there are two positions (if Revis does not show) that are downgrades, left guard and corner. But there are about 5 or 6 positions that are upgrades. Only a pessimist who assumes that every bad thing will happen would not say that there is a chance that this team is convincingly worse than last. Last years team did not “hit on all our hopes” and this year’s team does not have to either. Further really, this is not even considering the optimistic end of things like: Sanchez will really grow. Holmes, Braylon and Keller will shred defenses with speed, size and hands. And any number of other overly “upside” possibilities.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
Taylor might not be an upgrade at all. That deal is just as much about signing a big name and PSLs and tweaking the Phins than it is about production.
Couple that with equal to very little improvement from the backers and there’s a significant net loss to the overall defense with the loss to Revis.
If the loss of Revis and our tougher schedule, Sanchez will need to be much more productive. He will need to make more throws and therefore, even if his completion ratio and interception rate per pass improve, he still very easily could lose 3+ games again due to turnovers. He will have to skip the step of competency and go straight to good right off the bat, and steadily improve to very good by the time the playoffs begin in order for us to have a shot.
Greene twisted an ankle and was out for a month and a half last year. Then he cracked a rib in the playoffs on a play with very little contact. If he goes down for an extended stretch, thats even more of a load that Sanchez will have to carry. And Sanchez will have a much more difficult time when he becomes the main focus for opposing defenses rather than the running game.
Im less of a pessimist than I am a realist. The loss of Revis would be a dire situation this season. The only way to overcome it is by trading him for a very good pass rusher plus other usuable parts, IMO.
Taylor might not be an upgrade at all. That deal is just as much about signing a big name and PSLs and tweaking the Phins than it is about production.
I just don’t see that, and I have no idea why you would just assume it. Dolphin fans are comparing him to his past, obviously. It seems quite unlikely to me that there were not real football reasons, seen on film, for signing him.
As a sidenote, the idea that signing one of the most hated NFL players was going to sell PSLs is pretty silly. Either it is a poor interpretation, or the Jets are plain ridiculous. I would highly doubt that ONE PSL was bought because of this.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
Cmon kv. Most people assume JT is a good pass rusher and figure adding him will make our defense even more formidable.
He had 1.5 sacks over his last 10 games last season. Of his 7 total sacks, 2.5 came against Buffalo in game 4; and 2 came in the 2nd and 3rd qtr of a 46-36 loss to NO where MIA had a 34-24 lead in the 3rd qtr and coughed up 22 unanswred in the 4th to choke it away.
Most people assume JT is a good pass rusher and figure adding him will make our defense even more formidable.
Perhaps. But he is a HATED Dolphin of the first order. When he was pursued there was real recoil. I seriously doubt that ANY PSLs were sold on his signing. It would be a ridiculous signing, if that was the plan.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 11, 2010 1:07 AM EDT up reply actions
You can’t honestly think it was all about his pass rushing skills. He’s just not that good anymore. Same with LD, he hasn’t shown anything in a looonnngg time.
it doesn’t have to be ALL about his pass rushing skills for it to be an upgrade. He just doesn’t have to be washed up, which he probably isn’t.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 11, 2010 1:13 AM EDT up reply actions
Sanchez will need to be much more productive. He will need to make more throws and therefore, even if his completion ratio and interception rate per pass improve, he still very easily could lose 3+ games again due to turnovers.
Sure. But why do you discount the addition of two number 1 receivers? I don’t understand. You know football. You know that receivers make the quarterback. Holmes alone is a game changer. Putting Braylon in the second spot is golden, and having Cotch as your slot outlet. I don’t see how this isn’t a HUGE luxury for a 2nd year QB.
You don’t have to embrace it, you have to include it in your reasoning.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
I disagree. The QB makes the receivers, IMO. While its certainly possible that he improves, I’m not letting Revis go because he’s still going to have rough patches that will have a greater impact on the outcomes of games without Revis than they will with Revis.
Elite QBs make receivers, but great receivers make okay QBs good. They get open and create larger windows. They break tackles and create longer passing yards. They catch imperfect balls. All these things go way into the plus column for Sanchez.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 11, 2010 1:11 AM EDT up reply actions
Of course
Miami made a huge mistake of trading for Brandon Marshall, when they could have gotten the same production from what they already had.
by secret defense on Aug 11, 2010 1:16 AM EDT up reply actions
I agree. Elite receivers change the field. You have examples from both sides. Favre in the past has turned an average receiving corps into something pretty good, but a great pass catcher changes the passing game to a significant degree, and the QB looks much better all of sudden.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 11, 2010 1:21 AM EDT up reply actions
I think a QB can make his WR better,
but not in his second year. A big tall WR (after the TE) is a young QB’s best friend.
A good WR def helps the QB look better, look at what Plex did for Eli and B Marsh did for Cutler.
Since the face been revealed the game got real
Greene twisted an ankle and was out for a month and a half last year. Then he cracked a rib in the playoffs on a play with very little contact. If he goes down for an extended stretch, thats even more of a load that Sanchez will have to carry.
But this is an example of pessimism. Sure. this can happen. But what a reasonable approach would be is to say, hey, the guy has had some trouble with injury, but last year he missed a lot of time, this year he should be on the field much more and be much more productive than last. You don’t just assume injury. It has to be balanced. Greene also might become a monster runner, top five in the AFC, given his upside and the wideouts we have. I don’t even mention that. I’m just expecting good, solid production, and it being a little easier to run given our passing game.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
Its safer to assume injury for a guy who was very injured on very limited contact, than it is to assume that he’s going to make it through the entire season unscathed with drastically increased workload and many more hits.
I guess we disagree. There is not enough track record in my book to call him “injury prone”. It takes some time before a rookie learns just how hard they have to work to avoid injury.
But, honesty, as I see that you think that there is just as good a chance that Sanchez is a bust as anything else, we are the different end of a few of these issues.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 11, 2010 1:04 AM EDT up reply actions
Its not that i think he’s a bust, but for THIS season, I think its too big a gamble to expect him to make such a big improvement.
I think we still need to hold teams to less than 20 pts to have a shot at winning games. We’re still not a lock to go out and put up 25+ at will.
you made it sound like it was a 50% chance that he is a bust
The hope was that Sanchez merely had to play cometently this year, like he did in the playoffs, and hopefully progressing a little more once in the playoffs. But there’s an equal possibility that he’s a bust.
Do you see why I am hearing undue pessimism? It seems unreasonable to me to say that there is an equal chance that he is a bust this year. Its a possibility, but a remote one. Nothing really suggests it other than just wanting it to be so.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 11, 2010 1:15 AM EDT up reply actions
Last years performance plus the strong possibility of a signifinactly weaker running game leads to thinking theres an equal chance of Sanchez struggling again.
With Revis things don’t have to break perfectly for us to be in the hunt. Without him, they do. I don’t see it as pessimistic. I thinking believing that everything will break right, and downplaying the detrimental effect of the loss of Revis, is being overly optimistic.
Last years performance plus the strong possibility of a signifinactly weaker running game leads to thinking theres an equal chance of Sanchez struggling again.
But why do you exclude significant factors that show in almost all QBs? Personal growth. Familiarity with the playbook. Mental preperation.
And I have no idea why you assume an additional negative, that the running game is “significantly weaker”. Last year they lost Washington. Greene was a rookie and underperformed early on. Thomas ran hard, but for a very poor yards per carry. The defense stuffed the box.
Sense would say that it will be easier to run the ball this year. Or at least even.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 11, 2010 1:25 AM EDT up reply actions
Not if there’s a drop-off at LG and Greene gets injured and misses say 4 games.
Then Mark has to no only progress, but progress beyond the point of being able to offset the loss of Revis and being able to put points on the board when the safeties are keying him rather than the run game.
You’re asking Mark to go from maybe winning 2 games last year to winning at least 8 this year. Thats a huge jump.
Yes. And (I am only half joking), if Sanchez develops a serious drug habit as some young guys in ny do, and if Ferg breaks a leg, and if.
The problem is that you list only bad things happening. It okay if you want to do this, but its not “realism”. Its skewed. At least in my opinion.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 11, 2010 2:24 AM EDT up reply actions
Im less of a pessimist than I am a realist. The loss of Revis would be a dire situation this season.
I pride myself on being very realistic. I accept all the possibilities that you include, but I balance them out by also positive ones.Your realism seems to exclude any possible increase (which also happens), so its a bit unreal.
As far as “dire” situations, last year there is no chance at season’s start that anyone would have thought the team could absorb the loss of both Jenkins and Washington. The season would be considered a complete loss, which obviously it wasn’t.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
Or...
Let’s put it this way:
1. Sanchez (slight upgrade).
2. RB same.(but receivers open up the running game, slight upgrade).
3. Holmes, Braylon all year, Cotch in the slot (big upgrade)
4. Rex (slight upgrade)
5. Pool (slight upgrade)
6. Jenkins (upgrade)
1.Cromartie and Wilson vs. Revis and Sheppard (downgrade).
2.Left guard (downgrade).
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
Im saying if your eggs are in the superbowl basket, it is far riskier to take that shot based on ur assumptions and without Revis, than it is to absorb some of the expectant failures and have Revis.
Its just a question of percentages. I have six upgrades of varying levels. Do all of them have to come through to make the superbowl? No. But some of them also can surprise more to the positive. Greene could become a beast runner. Wilson might prove WAY better than Sheppard (is that really such a stretch?). Taylor might be perfect for 3rd down specialties (is that crazy)? Pool might be dramatically better than Rhodes against the run (seems not impossible). So it goes both ways.
I seriously doubt that the presence of Revis is the ONLY way this team is getting to the superbowl. I think part of the problem is that Revis is holding out, and people feel that this is something the Jets have control over. If Revis tore he knee on opening day I’m not sure so many people would say: there is no chance for the superbowl.
It was something of a long shot for the superbowl last year, even after they got to the playoffs. Without Revis, the chances are a bit better (which mean good, but not great). With Revis things change of course. But I’m not comparing the team to this team with Revis. I’m comparing it to last year’s team, which was highly flawed.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 11, 2010 1:03 AM EDT up reply actions
I just don’t see it man. We’d be lucky to reach .500 without him. Without him, we’ll go from giving up 15 pts per to at least 20 per.
To offset that we need Greene to match or improve upon TJ (no small feat) and for Sanchez to make big strides (better completion % and swap last yrs TD/INTs).
With Revis, we only give up 15 per at most, meaning we only need to muster up 20 per on O to be what we want to be. With Revis is a much safer bet.
What record did you predict for the team last year?
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 11, 2010 1:18 AM EDT up reply actions
So 8-8. And if someone asked you what the record would be if Jenkins and Washington were lost for the year….? Maybe 4-12, am I wrong?
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 11, 2010 2:25 AM EDT up reply actions
Not at all. But I don’t follow. Leon’s heir apparent busted out like crazy in the very game he got hurt in. There was less uncertainty involved. Especially with TJ still very productive and Greene’s touches being limited.
With Revis, you know his impact on games. With all the new guys, and the guys who didn’t prove much last year, there’s a lot of uncertainty.
We’re probably losing at least half of the new guys next year whether we resign Revis or not. Fact is, Mangold and Harris aren’t holding out and seem willing to play out the season. Since all our eggs are in the Superbowl basket, we might as well sign him for what he wants and sort it out later. That will give us the best chance at winning this year.
What I was suggesting was that you predicted 8-8 WITH the two best offensive and defensive players on the squad. I’m pretty sure you would have predicted much worse if you “knew” they they were going to be lost.
As for what Revis does. He does only ONE thing, which is take away the lead receiver. Nothing much else. It is as if the lead receiver of the other team has had an injury in practice. It effects the game, but it certainly doesn’t win you five games a year. It might win you 2 games a year.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 11, 2010 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions
We’d be lucky to reach .500 without him.
So you are predicting a 7-9 season w/o Revis?
Do you predict a 12-4 season with him? (superbowl level)
No defensive player is worth 5 wins.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 11, 2010 1:29 AM EDT up reply actions
I think Revis is. Thats about right. I think his effect is that dramatic. 5-7 pts a game.
Thats 7-9 if Sanchez is good and Greene is awesome. If either of those guys whiff, worse than that.
Its good to know where you stand.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 11, 2010 2:26 AM EDT up reply actions
this is outrageous.
If I wasn’t very familiar with your comments (I actually almost always agree with you, outside this issue), I would be almost positive you were trolling.
Great Post kv
As far as Woody and Revis’s agent (Neil Schwartz) is concerned there seems to be some bad blood between the two. It seems Neil has represented 2 other former Jets who has had contract disputes with the organization. Here is an excerpt of what is on Neil’s website, dated July 24, 2010 concerning reports of the Jets inquiring about T.O.
“This is no time for Mike Tannenbaum (and Woody Johnson) to be picking up the telephone inquiring about Terrell Owens.
The only call they should be making — today, tomorrow, the day after tomorrow — is to Darrelle Revis and his people.
Every waking hour inside the Atlantic Jets Health Training Center should be devoted to showing their best player enough money to avoid a holdout who could easily make this much ballyhooed Super Bowl-or-Bust season go bust.”
“Opportunity has never knocked this hard has been the Jets’ marketing campaign. It doesn’t knock hard at all without the best cornerback in the land.
Revis Island shouldn’t mean your best player should be thinking about standing on principle all alone and far away from teammates who worship his genius when the long, hot Hard Knocks summer begins in Cortland Sunday.”
“If there is one player who deserves a boatload of guaranteed money, it is Revis.
If there is one player who does not deserve to be insulted by having to wait for an offer of so much as a single guaranteed dollar, it is Revis.”
The full article can be viewed here http://www.sffootball.net/news.asp?Article_ID=438
Did he really say his teammates worship him? I don’t think this deal will ever get done as long as representatives like this are involved. While I’m sure his teammates understand the NFL is a business, I can’t imagine any of them are happy about it. Especially knowing he’s under contract for the next 3 years. Should he get paid more? Yes! Should he hold his teammates and fans hostage at this point in time? NO!
On the cusp of something special happening he goes and pulls this stunt.
by DatJetFanDude on Aug 10, 2010 11:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh lord, but this happens all over in sports.
Athletes are very aggressive confidence guys who often want to hire aggressive pitbull types to represent them. They are convinced to put their confidence in them, and once they do there is little turning back. The agent warns them that they are going to have to “go to war” and it all gets ugly.
Sigh.
I just wish that teams (owners, GMs) could see that its not about the agent, its about the player. But if this guy offends Woody it could be pretty bad.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
That is his agent saying that statement?
if so that is freaking garbage
Since the face been revealed the game got real
Wow can't believe this vote is this close
thought it would be one sided one way or the other.
Since the face been revealed the game got real
Perspective
Namdi is an 8 year veteran. He did not sign a 15.1 million dollar contract after his 3rd season. He paid his dues. Revis needs to man up and play out the remainder of his contract. To be fair, I see no reason why he can’t ask for the remaining 3 years to be converted to fully guaranteed.
To be fair, I see no reason why he can’t ask for the remaining 3 years to be converted to fully guaranteed.
That is an interesting solution.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
sounds good to me
What did the 5 fingers say to the face?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7CBwX1891A
HaHaHaHa!
by Lord Smackington on Aug 11, 2010 7:53 PM EDT up reply actions
+1...exactly..........Yeah the whole time
I thought that was the most likely thing to happen. All along I wanted to move his 10 million dollar years up to this year and next year and guar it. Then when other things become clear, (cba salary cap ect) they have 2 years to work out a contract before the last year of his deal where he will only get 1 million
Since the face been revealed the game got real
JB the problem here is, at the end of the day, the guy is still just a corner. They don’t win games, and therefore don’t warrant game-changing money. Awarding you the benefit of the doubt, in regards to all other arguments you could probably say it’s a matter of opinion. But not the first point. A corner is a corner no matter how special you think he is.
I used to think the way you do. A shutdown corner was a hot commodity in our copycat league back in Deion’s day. But how many have you seen come and go over the years with nothing to show for it? The top corners in the NFL right now: Nnamdi Asomugha, Darrelle Revis, Asante Samuel, Champ Bailey, Charles Woodson, and maybe even Cortland Finnegan. Best of the best. And the only one to even sniff a Superbowl is Samuel, who wasn’t even a starter when New England won it. Why aren’t these guys bringing home titles? Why aren’t defenses built around these players? Why are the corners the last guys you think about (if at all) when it comes to the best defenses in history? Because they’re not changing games! If Ronnie Lott didn’t move to safety where he could knock anyone’s head off instead of chasing one guy at a time his whole career, you probably wouldn’t have heard of him.
What solidified my stance on this issue was the 2007 Giants. They faced the most prolific pass offense in history with patchwork crap in their secondary. This is fact, not opinion. That’s why no one gave them a chance. It didn’t matter because the players that can change a game, namely pass rushers and the Giants’ QB, took the game over and won it. No great corner needed. Not even a good one.
Lastly, Revis didn’t stop Welker from raping our secondary. He didn’t stop Manning from carving us up either, did he? Because he only limits one offensive player. Pay him accordingly.
Why aren’t defenses built around these players? Why are the corners the last guys you think about (if at all) when it comes to the best defenses in history?
I guess the one thing you are not taking into account is that Rex’s defense (unlike many that are built around pass rushers) IS built around corners. Whether that is a good idea or not is another story, but it is pretty much the case.
"...where they don't play with a shot clock." - C. Sager
by kv on Aug 11, 2010 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions
u know
I don’t like holdouts on principal. I think a man signing his name and giving his word means something.
If my gardener has a contract to cut my house for $100 a week and as a result I have the most beautiful lawn in the neighborhood, I might be pleased enough to want to extend the relationship and give him some more business.
During this time the neighbors are talking up the job on my lawn, I’m bragging how I nabbed this great gardener and my lawn even makes the cover of home&garden.
If I want to renew my contract early and insult him with a lowball offer it does not give him a right to skip out on cutting my lawn under the current contract.
I understand Revis’ concern about getting hurt so I see why he’s doing this but consider we do give him whatever he asks for 120+ or whatever, he could still get hurt.
He’d be covered, but how do recover being still on the hook for all that guaranteed money he wants?
What did the 5 fingers say to the face?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7CBwX1891A
HaHaHaHa!
by Lord Smackington on Aug 11, 2010 8:04 PM EDT reply actions
The issue here, from Mevis’ perspective, is not injury. He had one great season (that’s right, a couple good ones, ONE great season), and consequently wants to be the highest paid corner in NFL history.
by nationalist88 on Aug 12, 2010 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Gang Green Nation
Related FanShots on Gang Green Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
