If not Revis, then who?
- Thread starter theapportioner
- Start date
Yeah I'd be calling the Saints FO if I were Belichick. IIRC there was some debate on whether Lewis was good this year with the Saints, but there's no way New Orleans is going to guarantee the rest of his contract and if he's demanding out and the team is indeed in fire sale mode, I'd try to get him. Maybe throw in Dennard or Ryan, along with a 4th or 5th round pick?
But you can't separate the fact that having a defense that can get off the field gives the offense more chances to score points. Without the 3 and outs in the second half of XLIX the Patriots probably don't get the chance for the go-ahead touchdown. Same thing for the stops in the Baltimore game (IND was just a blow out, regardless).ivanvamp said:
My fear is that the Patriots will be forced to return to the zone coverages they featured prior to Revis and Browner (which would also explain them letting Browner go - without Revis on the other side, they can't match up man-to-man, so Browner goes from an asset to a liability in a new scheme).
I understand why they didn't sign Revis from a financial standpoint, but I don't like it. He's such a unique player, one that they cannot replace, and as a result they be forced to play a whole lot of soft zone coverage, a la pre-2014. If they can develop a dominant front 7 (and maybe that's what BB is doing here), then great. But it doesn't seem likely with the DL personnel they currently have, or might be able to sign.
The only question as to why they would go from 'man' to 'zone' is WHY?? Zone failed for years and as soon as they went back to 'man' they won a Super Bowl.
It makes zero sense outside of "we didn't spend X amount of money on the players needed to play man to man, so we're forced to go to zone based on the pieces we already have," and that explanation absolutely sucks. Target guys either in FA, a trade, or the draft that can play a physical style of corner and then re-sign Browner. Any change in scheme is a totally baseless and unnecessary move at this point. You JUST won it all playing man coverage!
It makes zero sense outside of "we didn't spend X amount of money on the players needed to play man to man, so we're forced to go to zone based on the pieces we already have," and that explanation absolutely sucks. Target guys either in FA, a trade, or the draft that can play a physical style of corner and then re-sign Browner. Any change in scheme is a totally baseless and unnecessary move at this point. You JUST won it all playing man coverage!
H78 said:
We'll see what they do but I think you vastly overstate the transition here. If anything, it'll be a shift in the coverage mix, with more zone thrown in but still plenty of man, and there are plenty of defensible reasons for doing that. I hated the Browner move because I thought he had trade value but if you're planning to play a lot of different coverages then Browner might not be an ideal guy.
Well, no. They played a lot of man in 2013 and in the second half of 2012 and didn't win the Super Bowl.H78 said:
Well, ideally they can get corners (via FA, the draft, or trade) that can play good man coverage, but every team in the league wants those and there aren't enough to go around. So if you can't get them, do you play man anyway even though you don't have players that can do it? Or do you adapt the scheme?H78 said:
H78 said:
Because you can play almost exclusively man when you have the best man cover corner on the planet. But when you don't, you need to keep the offense guessing more often.
H78 said:
Obviously. And I don't see why its depressing at all. You sound like fucking Felger and Mazz.
$40 million guaranteed is not killer for a player that literally takes your defense to a new level. It's ok to admit it, BBTL regulars. This seems like a terrible move given what they just accomplished and given the seemingly fair-value money it would have taken.
I hope there's another shoe to drop, but I have no idea what it could even be.
I hope there's another shoe to drop, but I have no idea what it could even be.
Why is that depressing? If they did not have a cap to deal with sure, spend the money. But I would rather they build a team that is deep and capable of surviving injuries instead of being fucked when one man goes down.H78 said:
Also they made the superbowl in 2011 without a shutdown corner and were in a similar situation as this past SB. You can win without playing man, they have shown that.
Because BB isn't willing to risk giving up the big play. If you don't have a guy you can actually cover in man (and there really are only a couple of these guys in the league), the other team goes right down the field 25 yards at a time, instead of the 8-10 yards they seems I give up in soft zones.H78 said:
Revis allowed them to play man because he didn't need help. More guys covering the rest of the recovers, and he wasn't going to get torched deep. Freed up DMC, which allowed Chung to be closer to the line, etc.
All talked about here and everywhere else repeatedly. BB won't play predominantly man without an elite cover guy on the outside.
Stop being rationale.Silverdude2167 said:
We cut Milloy, traded Seymour, let Vinatieri walk, let Ty Law go, watched Welker leave, etc. etc. etc. Granted that Revis had a large impact on the defense, but the Patriots set limits and tremendously value their salary cap flexibility. They deemed the deal that Revis signed with the NYJ to be out of their comfort zone. Now, they regroup, sign some FAs who are cheap, make their draft picks, seek out training camp cuts, and move on to winning the AFC East, getting a 1st round bye, playing in the AFC Championship, and trying to win Superbowls.
This time must be different though.
God, a lot of our fanbase really sucks. I got a text from a fan asking why the Pats and FO were "pinching penies to make a profit this year" this morning. Now it's "depressing" that they couldn't outbid a team with 45 million dollars more to spend than they had. Fuck, we won maybe the best Superbowl ever like 40 days ago. Everything is going to be ok.
H78 said:
You're asking the wrong question. Is Revis worth the contract he got paid? Well, yes, in the abstract perhaps. The question is not whether he might have been worth it, but whether the Patriots could pay it. They couldn't. They do not have the cap space.
Plus, "$40 million" is wrong. Unless Revis is injured, his deal is effectively 3/48, so $16 million a year is what the Patriots would have had to pay to get 3 years of Revis. They have $13.9 million in cap space. They could get the average cap hit over those three years down probably about $10 million, by using a signing bonus to defer $5,000,000 to each of 2018 and 2019. So that basically means $38 million in cap hits over the next 3 years, or about $12.75 million.
How can they take a $12.75 million cap hit this year when they only have $13.9 in space? And do you really want the Patriots in March of 2015 to already have $20 million in potential dead money on the books in 2018 and 2019 between Revis, Gronk and McCourty.
I really think it's incumbent on guys like Felger who would advance this sort of argument to actually put pencil to paper and show us how to make this deal happen. I think there's this make believe idea that "oh, you can manipulate the cap to do whatever you like." It's just not true. I'd really like to see someone show how the Patriots could do it -- and it has to be more specific than fantasy like "oh, just get Solder to do x," when it's pretty clear that Solder was more than happy to play for one year for $7 million.
The last fallacy with the "they could afford $40 million" argument (in addition to the real cap exposure being 48) is that there is nothing to suggest that the Jets were going to stop at 3/48. They had $50 million in cap space. They wanted their guy.
I wonder if the decision to play more man coverage this past year contributed to Logan Ryan looking worse his 2nd year. Maybe he's a zone guy.
Yes, exactly. The Pats probably could have gotten around paying it all over the first 3 seasons by deferring it in a signing bonus, but that's what the ultimate bill would have been, barring a catastrophic injury. I think we all made the mistake of overestimating his market and looking at it through those parameters.
j44thor said:
You're not actually playing the game, you know? It is not your job to go out and win these games. You're allowed to sit back and enjoy things once in a while, especially since we're all sitting here talking about a process that's 2 barely over a day in and the roster is certain to change.
DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
You keep mentioning dead money for Gronk and McCourty in 2018 & 2019 but I don't see it. The only way the Pats have dead money on those deals is if both guys are out of the league or playing for other teams by that point. Isn't it a lot more likely that they are restructure candidates at that point? Perhaps I'm missing something but I don't think we should worry about Gronk and McCourty in 2018/19 unless they are injured, which is obv a possibility for Gronk.
I don't agree with H78 but I think people are being a little tough on him.
The Patriots just won a SB with a shut down corner who is universally agreed to be one of the best CBs in the game. He was a true difference maker who allowed the defense to take away at least one player each game, and dictate how the opposing offense played, often times. His teammates said it was an honor to play with him. While the Pats made the Super Bowl twice in the last 10 years, by the end of this season the defense was being hailed as the best Pats D since 2004,many observers said that the difference between this team and the prior SB entrants since SB 39 was the improved play of the defense, Revis was the best player on that defense and, almost incredibly,they didn't allow an opposing TD in the 4th quarter in the last 8 games.
Now of course, there are many ways to skin a cat. And Revis could get hurt and that's a lot of eggs to have in one basket. And the HC/GM seems to know what he's doing.
But Brady is probably only going to be around for 2-3 years and it's reasonable to want the team to twin Tom and Revis for that period and give them the best chance possible to win one or two more, and to wonder why they didn't meet Revis' asking price.
I get that life isn't always that simple but at the same time, sometimes we overcomplicate things. I think that's generally what H78 is saying and I think it's not as far out there as some are suggesting.
The Patriots just won a SB with a shut down corner who is universally agreed to be one of the best CBs in the game. He was a true difference maker who allowed the defense to take away at least one player each game, and dictate how the opposing offense played, often times. His teammates said it was an honor to play with him. While the Pats made the Super Bowl twice in the last 10 years, by the end of this season the defense was being hailed as the best Pats D since 2004,many observers said that the difference between this team and the prior SB entrants since SB 39 was the improved play of the defense, Revis was the best player on that defense and, almost incredibly,they didn't allow an opposing TD in the 4th quarter in the last 8 games.
Now of course, there are many ways to skin a cat. And Revis could get hurt and that's a lot of eggs to have in one basket. And the HC/GM seems to know what he's doing.
But Brady is probably only going to be around for 2-3 years and it's reasonable to want the team to twin Tom and Revis for that period and give them the best chance possible to win one or two more, and to wonder why they didn't meet Revis' asking price.
I get that life isn't always that simple but at the same time, sometimes we overcomplicate things. I think that's generally what H78 is saying and I think it's not as far out there as some are suggesting.
j44thor said:
It matters as an accounting matter. Whatever happens to the players, dead money in future years is money that you've borrowed and you have to pay for in future years caps. Yes, can you by restructuring continue to kick the can down the line for future years if you've willing to pay those players their salary? Sure. But eventually the bill becomes due. So, you get to 2017, and you give McCourty some new cash and maybe you string out the cap hit in 2018 and 2019 into 2020 and 2021 with a few more million, but then you've just kicked it down the line. The Patriots have already borrowed $5 million from 2018 and 2019 to pay players now, and they will have to pay that bill eventually. My point is that to sign Revis that number jumps to $10 million per year. That's a lot of dead money to be carrying. Just as a comparison, I took a quick look at other teams' dead money in 2019. I just randomly clicked on a few teams that strike me as pretty good at managing the cap. Seattle -- $0 in dead money. NYG -- $0 in dead money. Packers -- $0 in dead money. Denver -- $860,000 in dead money. Even a team that we regard as kind of irresponsible with the cap, the Ravens, has $0 in dead money in 2019, although they do have about $12.5 million in 2018.
So, to sign Revis, we would have increased our 2018 and 2019 dead money to $20 million -- $7.5 million more than the fucking Ravens!
People have been saying "The Brady window is closing" since his injury in 2008 and clamoring for the Patriots to spend beyond their means every single season and take future cap hits/dead money to give them that "one last chance" at a Superbowl. Had they actually gone out and overpaid those years and lost a game in the playoffs, they'd never have been in financial position in 2014 to have had the success they did. After 10 years of fielding good/very good/great teams, losing out a number of times due to one play here or there, or just plain bad luck, they turn everything around in a season where it was reasonable to think the dynastic run was over a quarter of the way through the season, and win the Super Bowl. Five weeks later, it's the same song and dance from the "just want one more" to the extent that the Pats are cheap money-grubbers and not paying Revis what amounts to 3/48 is depressing.
Look, I'm not saying I didn't want him back. Who didn't? But maybe when the initial sting wears off, we can reflect on how lucky we were to have him at all and how the year we did the Pats one their impossibly elusive fourth Superbowl. The money he got was, in effect, 3/48. Given the Pats cap situation, it's more than understandable why they chose not to match that, even if you disagree. Even if they had, what's to say Woody doesn't just increase his offer a few million? It had to stop somewhere, and it was going to stop wherever Woody wanted, not Bill.
People are being tough on H78 because the Pats just won the Super Bowl six weeks ago and he's stamping his feet and saying he's "depressed" because a player has signed with another team. That's straight up sports petulism.
Never mind the unprecedented 15 year run of success for the club that's happened precisely because they haven't been afraid to let good players walk if the money is too high.
Never mind that it's Day 2 of free agency.
Never mind that the club came within just a few points of winning 2 Super Bowls without playing man-to-man D, or that the defense in this year's run actually had 2 mediocre games while playing man.
I would also venture to say that he'd be depressed if the Pats were unable to keep Hightower and Jones (both due for new deals at big money after 2015) and Solder (FA after 2015) because they blew their wad on Revis.
Golden rule: YOU CAN'T KEEP EVERYONE. The Pats will never, ever fuck over future years on the cap by spending mad money now, not while BB is in charge. And the past 15 years of results should provide all the example anyone needs that their methods WORK.
Edit: Dammit, Hillel, stop stealing my thunder.
Never mind the unprecedented 15 year run of success for the club that's happened precisely because they haven't been afraid to let good players walk if the money is too high.
Never mind that it's Day 2 of free agency.
Never mind that the club came within just a few points of winning 2 Super Bowls without playing man-to-man D, or that the defense in this year's run actually had 2 mediocre games while playing man.
I would also venture to say that he'd be depressed if the Pats were unable to keep Hightower and Jones (both due for new deals at big money after 2015) and Solder (FA after 2015) because they blew their wad on Revis.
Golden rule: YOU CAN'T KEEP EVERYONE. The Pats will never, ever fuck over future years on the cap by spending mad money now, not while BB is in charge. And the past 15 years of results should provide all the example anyone needs that their methods WORK.
Edit: Dammit, Hillel, stop stealing my thunder.
They didn't really have any options in this regard. The NFL has a hard cap and even after releasing Browner they had less cap space than Revis' cap figure for next year. Revis had a number he wanted and that number was greater than NE's available cap space. Nothing to be depressed about.H78 said:
Agree, it's not far out. It's particularly not far out when one considers the relative weakness of the AFC, the ticking clock (we have NO idea what we'd get from Jimmy G) and the pained memories of big games closely lost because the secondary clearly was not up to it (contra point -- we won the SB against Philly with a guy off the street playing back there).TheoShmeo said:
But I just checked the SB odds for next year. We are at 7 to 1, a favorite relatively. But that still translates into a 12.5% chance of winning the damn thing. How much does Revis change that? Additionally, with this approach that has been followed for 15 years, we've never been in cap hell. In this context, we won't be one play away from almost $40 million in dead money with a 30-yr old player.
This assumes that the Jets wouldn't have just bumped up their offer if they needed to.DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
It sucks they didn't sign Revis but the Jets had so much more money to spend they only way Revis was ending up here was if he would come for less.
That turned out not to be the case so its time to move on.
DDB, Ed and SJH make great points.
Just for giggles, who else could the Patriots have cut to even be in the running for Revis? What kind of sacrifices would they have had to make—in not just the "out" years but the current one—to get Revis in the door under the cap? Browner was obviously one guy they may have been willing to part with (tho if the story about them being out of the running is true, maybe it was totally unrelated to Revis). And we've already seen how cutting Mayo would've actually increased the cap.
Could they have cut anyone else? That may help people understand why Revis, at the end of the day, wasn't actually an option.
Just for giggles, who else could the Patriots have cut to even be in the running for Revis? What kind of sacrifices would they have had to make—in not just the "out" years but the current one—to get Revis in the door under the cap? Browner was obviously one guy they may have been willing to part with (tho if the story about them being out of the running is true, maybe it was totally unrelated to Revis). And we've already seen how cutting Mayo would've actually increased the cap.
Could they have cut anyone else? That may help people understand why Revis, at the end of the day, wasn't actually an option.
Maybe this will provide some better context on the Revis contract:
http://overthecap.com/position/cornerback/
http://overthecap.com/position/cornerback/
Who isn't depressed that we didn't keep Revis?Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
I call bullshit that it's petulant to be bummed about this.
It's not binary, SJH. You can be fully grateful for everything the Pats have given us, understanding that the cap system means you can't keep everyone, aware that there are 6 months until the next game and fully trusting in the best HC/GM in the NFL and yes, at the exact same time be depressed that the single biggest game changer on the Pats D in the last ten years (and maybe ever) just walked out the door, and to the freaking Jets no less.
I think that we're sometimes so caught up in not looking like babies or worse, Yankees fans, that we forget that it's OK to be rather upset when the Pats lose a truly one of a kind player like Darrelle Revis.
Listen, nobody died and we'll all get over this. But the loss of any of Brady, Gronk or Revis to a team that many of us love to hate qualifies, in my book, as reasonable cause for "sports depression." Many of us are passionate about the Pats and have an almost paternalistic love for them given all the crap that they and we have gone through with the various overstated controversies and gut punch losses over the last decade. While we're undoubtedly incredibly lucky to root for this wonderful, well run, intelligent franchise, it's been a passion play at times, and the loss of one of the key pieces who helped our team get over the hump fits right in.
As to your Hightower point, Revis is clearly different in kind and I think you know that.
DCMissile, I'm not sure what Vegas would say as I am not a gambler and have very little understanding of such things, but I think the Pats odds went down when DR left and I note that many other Pats fans on this board answered thusly in the poll I started (taken before Revis left). Worse is worse.
PS: I cannot overstate what I said about being grateful. This team...wow. I've been a fan since around 1972. So many lean years between then and SB 36. Sure, there were some great times -- 1976, the run up to the Bears SB, the run up to the GB SB, to name the most obvious ones. But this team was kind of the Charlie Brown franchise for a long time, and there are so many wacky stories. To have a coach like Bill and a QB like Tom, and FOUR SB rings. It's amazing. So incredibly proud of these guys, and I agree with Kraft that this win is probably the most satisfying, as great as the first one was. It's a fun conversation, in any event, and I remember like it was yesterday that sense when AV's kick went through that "we won and they can never take that away!" Still, I just don't think an awareness of that gratitude and the reasons for it means that Pats fans aren't allowed to be in a sad state over the events of the last 24-48 hours, even if there are good and proper reasons for them. PS and rant over.
I'm sorry, if you're this upset that a player has left FIVE WEEKS AFTER WINNING THE SUPER BOWL then you're everything Drew Magary hates about Pats fans and more. How many years of unrivalled success do they have to have before you understand the methods to their madness?
Super Bowls aren't won or lost in March. For crissakes, we haven't even had the draft yet.
Super Bowls aren't won or lost in March. For crissakes, we haven't even had the draft yet.
Sure, everyone was upset we lost Revis on one level or another, but I'm not depressed because the team is cheap or because I think they don't know how to properly allocate resources, even if they aren't perfect. It's ridiculous at this point, given the level of success. If you really want to be "depressed" about that stuff, try being a fan of any other team in the free agency period ever.
[/quote]I am certainly not happy to see Revis depart, but the fact that he's going to the Jets is a relief to me.[/quote]
And there's that, too. No Colts, no Ravens, no Packers, etc.
[/quote]I am certainly not happy to see Revis depart, but the fact that he's going to the Jets is a relief to me.[/quote]
And there's that, too. No Colts, no Ravens, no Packers, etc.
I am certainly not happy to see Revis depart, but the fact that he's going to the Jets is a relief to me.
Van Everyman said:
Up until yesterday at 4:00, they could have cut Solder and saved $7 million. After that, there's no big tickets. The only real candidates would be Amendola ($1.5m), Dennard ($1.032m), Hooman ($890,000), Blount ($483,000).
There are a few other cuts they theoretically could have made, but would be ridiculous given the value of the player and the dead cap hit -- Nink for $940,000. Vollmer for 1.3m. Lafell $990,000. Hightower for $993,000. Wendell for $1.5m.
You have clearly missed my point.Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
There is NOTHING that you and others have said about the Patriots, BB, their methods and the whole deal that I don't understand. I fully agree with you.
And I don't actually agree with H78. I just think what he's saying shouldn't lead to some of the reactions he got.
We're talking about emotions here and how different people react to things. This isn't science. I think it's OK to be fully cognizant of all you have said and be depressed. That the two things are mutually exclusive for you doesn't mean they are for others. The same strong emotions that cause fans to bond tightly with teams and care about them deeply sometimes show up differently based on how we're all wired. I don't think this is a difficult concept or one that should make you react so dismissively. Of course EVERYONE knows that nothing is won in March. Nothing I have written suggests otherwise.
Looking back to the question posed in the original post, and looking at it even more broadly than about specific players, but looking at it from the perspective of "If not Revis [Island], then what [strategy]? In other words, how best to go about moving forward.
Some here have offered that with Revis (and Browner theoretically) gone resources should be allocated toward the DLine: "improve the pass rush and the secondary doesn't have to do as much."
Some have suggested going out and acquiring more offensive help: "Outscore the motherfuckers; win 42-38 and don't give a shit about the secondary!"
Some have urged finding the next Revis, whether thru trade or thru the draft: "We just won a SuperBowl with Revis (et al) shutting down defenses by eliminating passing attacks, let's do the same thing."
Which is the best strategy?
We can look at some data points from the Patriots' most recent year:
Some here have offered that with Revis (and Browner theoretically) gone resources should be allocated toward the DLine: "improve the pass rush and the secondary doesn't have to do as much."
Some have suggested going out and acquiring more offensive help: "Outscore the motherfuckers; win 42-38 and don't give a shit about the secondary!"
Some have urged finding the next Revis, whether thru trade or thru the draft: "We just won a SuperBowl with Revis (et al) shutting down defenses by eliminating passing attacks, let's do the same thing."
Which is the best strategy?
We can look at some data points from the Patriots' most recent year:
- We beat Seattle who don't really have a great passing attack.
- We crushed Indy by running over, around, and thru them.
- We lost to Green Bay because we never even sniffed Rodgers.
- We started the season in a bad way because the OLine was a shambles.
- 2014 -- Seahawks. Dominant D led by a dominant secondary.
- 2013 -- Ravens. Strong D. Big play offense. Kind of a fluky team.
- 2012 -- Giants. Strong D led by a strong D Line.
- 2011 -- Packers. Powerhouse passing offense.
- 2010 -- Saints. Powerhouse passing offense.
- 2009 -- Steelers. Strong D, especially the LB corps.
- 2008 -- Giants. Strong D led by a strong D Line.
- 2007 -- Colts. SOlid D, but really a powerhouse passing offense.
What is pissing me off is people killing Kraft this morning. All he has done is:
Kept the team in New England
Hired arguably the greatest coach of all time
Made 7 Super Bowl appearances
Won 4 Super Bowls
Built a new stadium
Helped end the lockout
Become a leader among owners
Taken a laughing stock franchise and turned it into one of the premier franchises in all of sports.
But, yes, he doesn't care about winning and only cares about lining his pockets. Fuck off.
Kept the team in New England
Hired arguably the greatest coach of all time
Made 7 Super Bowl appearances
Won 4 Super Bowls
Built a new stadium
Helped end the lockout
Become a leader among owners
Taken a laughing stock franchise and turned it into one of the premier franchises in all of sports.
But, yes, he doesn't care about winning and only cares about lining his pockets. Fuck off.
Ok people saying he doesn't care are idiots. I love Kraft and will always appreciate all he has doneMarbleheader said:
But he really screwed this one up. I can still respect him and say that
Notwithstanding my defense of H78, let me clearly issue a Bravo. I have not seen Kraft taking a beating other than in the CHB's idiotic column (that I should not have read), but to the extent that it's going on elsewhere, it's patently ridiculous.Marbleheader said:
We are very lucky to have Robert Kraft in the owner's chair and nothing regarding Revis or anything else changes that.
Marbleheader said:
I think that the story that came out a couple of weeks ago that the Patriots have to increase their cash spending this year is confusing people into thinking the Patriots don't spend to the cap. It made it sound as though they are saving money and not spending as much as they are allowed to spend, when in actuality all that is happening is a technical thing about when they spend the money, and they are behind because they gave Brady a ton of money that all counted in one year.
I can see where you take the simplistic point -- "the Patriots aren't meeting their obligation to spend 89 percent of the cap" -- and combine it with Revis going elsewhere, people would be confused into thinking the Patriots are just trying to "save" money instead what they are doing -- trying allocate their $143 million as best they can to build a 51 man roster.
DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
I don't listen to talk radio much, but I get the sense that because the teams can finagle the cap, that means the cap isn't meaningful, which is not the case.
Could they finagle the cap to get Revis? Well, yeah, and they did... last year.
Specifically, they added on that BS year as a way of being able to sign Revis to a one year deal, but pay for it over two years and offer Revis a firm commitment that they wouldn't franchise him, because they couldn't. If you check the Patriots cap number, that last $5m would have put them over the cap last season.
Revis wanted $16m/yr, but Tampa Bay couldn't give that away, so Revis and the Patriots entered into a mutually beneficial agreement for one year to rebuild his value--which we can now see was successful seeing as he got his $16/yr for three years with almost all of that guaranteed (I'm ignoring the back end.) and he and the team got rings along the way.
That deal was almost certainly critical to the Patriots getting that championship. And it was part of making it even harder for them to re-sign Revis this year. So I don't find it depressing that they couldn't re-sign him at all, and more than I find my inability to fly or breathe underwater depressing--it's part of the physic of the game under the salary cap, and the reality is that what happened yesterday is really just symptomatic of doing what it took to win that ring.
I get wishing Revis was here. But being depressed about it is a bit like wishing a great party hadn't happened because it makes the days after more ordinary. Loved and lost, people. Loved and lost.
Except they fucking won.
Touche.Papelbon's Poutine said:
Funny, I bought a throwback replica but never ended up wearing it much.
Maybe I'll give it to a Jets fan. :buddy:
TheoShmeo said:
What's wrong with a Ty Law jersey?
Oh, and the other problem with H78's position is that he's addressing man v. zone as though it's a binary issue. What Revis allowed the Patriots to do was play a lot of man-underneathe in Cover 1 and Cover 3 shells--revisit SuperNomario's piece on the strategy in the Super Bowl on how they used it to contain the Seahawks.
Know who else plays a lot of Cover 1 and Cover 3? The Seahawks. Why? Because they have Sherman at one CB and an awesome and fast safety in Thomas. The Patriots didn't play these shells as much until the got Revis.
One of the things that sets Belichick apart is that he doesn't just have "his" scheme. He reworks his schemes based on what he has, and retools his lineup based on what's available in the market. So if he chooses to go to different defensive coverages, it's for this reason, and that's a good thing--it's one of the team's strengths. Treating it like a bug and not a feature seems odd to me.