Nothing. Except that it says "Revis" across the back.There is no Rev said:
What's wrong with a Ty Law jersey?
If not Revis, then who?
- Thread starter theapportioner
- Start date
Here you go. Just sew like 8 or 10 of them onto the jersey and walk around NYC with it.
http://www.18jerseysfamily.com/New-England-Patriots-2015-Super-Bowl-XLIX-Champions-Patch-109697/
http://www.18jerseysfamily.com/New-England-Patriots-2015-Super-Bowl-XLIX-Champions-Patch-109697/
It's a thought. Though maybe I should auction it off here and give the proceeds to a Depression Treatment Center.
You know what? I agree with this wholeheartedly.j44thor said:
I want the Pats to dominate every game. I watched even closer in 2007 because I wanted to watch how they humiliated opponents. I will keep watching any blowouts because it's fun as hell. And the next day after they won #4 I was hungry for more, because this is an amazing unprecendented run and I want to see them put it even further out of reach. It needs to be so great for so long that history looks back and thinks "man, no one is ever going to match that."
But you know what makes it even better? That they have won in a ton of different ways. They've won with a great defense that pulled out big plays when they needed it. They won by dominating everyone and not looking back. They won with a mediocre defense by playing really fast and just outscoring everyone. Then they won with a secondary that could cover receivers for what seemed like minutes until the QB just wanted to give up and was forced to take a sack or throw it away.
If they won with largely the same team, that would be great. But it will be even cooler when they are going deep in the playoffs with the new group of guys and the new brilliant strategy and gameplans that they came up with this time. And the players they pick up with the flexibility allowed by passing on Revis (if there was even a chance to match what NY was going to offer).
Holding firm to their principles re: the cap is what allowed them to NEVER HAVE A DOWN SEASON. I'll defend that record for a long time.
Let's all try to imagine how "depressed" we would be if Revis wound up in Baltimore or GB or Pittsburgh or Indy. Yes, things change, sometimes quickly, in the NFL, but the odds are pretty good - ESP considering the QB situation - that Revis is, as far as the Pats are concerned, safely tucked away in jersey where he may wind up doing the least harm, or at least minimal harm until his retirement - not all that long from Brady's window closing.
Languish away in new giants stadium, #24. Thanks for the memories.
Languish away in new giants stadium, #24. Thanks for the memories.
Thanks for the plug Rev, but I would say it started more with the Talib acquisition, and McCourty's corresponding move to safety. Since then, they've been primarily a single-high safety team, though it probably went to another level this year with Revis / Browner. If they can get another good man corner, I think they can continue to play a lot of Cover 1.There is no Rev 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.
And to follow on to your point that it's not binary, the Seahawks play Cover 3 (a zone defense) but press with their corners on the outside initially (a man concept). The Patriots played Cover 1 last year (a man defense) but usually had Collins and Hightower in zones, which gave it some zone characteristics. It's almost impossible to build a defense with five coverage players good enough to lock down a team's five eligible receivers in man coverage with no help, so you need some concept of zone, but it's too easy for offenses to find the holes in pure zone defenses, so even primarily zone defenses need some man elements (such as pattern matching).
Isn't this the point, though? Where are they going to get a good man corner? They (like pretty much everyone) struggle when they don't have that guy, precisely because it allows the rest of the defense to do other things.Super Nomario said:
Regardless of whether it was feasible to bring Revis back, I know I will miss watching defense the way they played it last year. Not to speak for anyone else, but that's disappointing, even if I understand and accept the reasons why.
Every time the opposing QB stood behind his line, with zero pressure, for 8-10 seconds without being able to find an open receiver it healed my soul from the seasons where I watched in horror while someone like Dan Orlovsky throw for 300+ yards and few touchdowns.
Mr Poon 14 said:
What if next year instead we see guys get sacked after two seconds and we hear "he had a guy wide open if only he had time." There is more than one way to skin a cat.
That would be great. Though, as I mentioned before, it doesn't seem they have the personnel for that, at least to this point. Getting pressure with their front 3 or 4 consistently has been a problem.MainerInExile said:
Don't get me wrong, I still think there plenty good enough to contend and I trust that Bill and Patricia will get them to that point. I just think an elite cover corner is a luxury that allows you to do so many things that make your defense better from top to bottom. It sucks they don't have that now.
What's the best way to increase your odds of winning the Super Bowl? Never have a down year.
Right now the Vegas odds are about 12%. Revis isn't going to change that more than +-3% and that's being generous.
But staying good every year has a much bigger effect. If losing Revis takes them to 10% this year, and they maintain the same team quality next year, odds are 19% they'll win in one of the next two seasons- an increase of 9%.
Teams maximize chances of winning the Super Bowl by being consistently very good, not being superb one year and weak the next. The Pats manage their cap accordingly.
Right now the Vegas odds are about 12%. Revis isn't going to change that more than +-3% and that's being generous.
But staying good every year has a much bigger effect. If losing Revis takes them to 10% this year, and they maintain the same team quality next year, odds are 19% they'll win in one of the next two seasons- an increase of 9%.
Teams maximize chances of winning the Super Bowl by being consistently very good, not being superb one year and weak the next. The Pats manage their cap accordingly.
The same reasoning works for any estimates of winning the Super Bowl in a given year. Substitute Vegas odds out for whatever your favorite estimate is.Papelbon's Poutine said:
The point is: it's smart to take a moderate hit in the present year if it means you stay good in future years. Given the contract situations of guys like Collins Hightower Solder etc., I'm happy they didn't guarantee Revis 16M for each of the next three years.
Question for those who know football better than I do: with Revis and Browner gone, and the Pats highly unlikely to be playing cover 1, does Chung become more of a liability against the pass? Should we expect to see a lot more of Duron Harmon in 2015?
On his Chalk Talk Podcast, Doug Farrar advanced the idea that Belichick might try to zig when others zag by going for zone and off-man corners while everyone else is trying to copy Seattle (and the Pats last year) and grab big press-man players. He specifically cited Wake Forest's Kevin Johnson (a dude I'm high on) as an ideal zone / off-man player. I know the "Z word" throws some folks here into a tizzy, but after watching tape of 20-something college players over the weekend, I can point out one advantage of zone: that's what the kids are playing in college these days. Seriously, it is not uncommon to see a cutup of a whole game and not see a guy press at all.
Check out this clip of Richard Sherman from when he was at Stanford. There are 25 plays here; he's in press on just three of them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzm6HeFS2sE
It can't be easy to look at tape like this and project a guy into a totally different scheme. But if the Pats move to more of a zone-based approach, the evaluation process for defensive backs might be easier, and they could get bargains as teams pass over solid zone players for tall guys who are projects.
Check out this clip of Richard Sherman from when he was at Stanford. There are 25 plays here; he's in press on just three of them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzm6HeFS2sE
It can't be easy to look at tape like this and project a guy into a totally different scheme. But if the Pats move to more of a zone-based approach, the evaluation process for defensive backs might be easier, and they could get bargains as teams pass over solid zone players for tall guys who are projects.
Super Nomario said:
Isn't the flip side of that argument that the WRs coming out of college also have more experience playing against the zone? Maybe it's still apples vs. oranges because the best college WRs are not playing against the best college off-man corners on a consistent basis, but I wonder how much of the experience built by the CBs playing zones in college is offset by the young WRs experience playing against those same zones.
I tend to think of beating zone as more on the QB and play design, though WR who can run option routes can defeat zones. There aren't a lot of college receivers who have a sophisticated understanding of how to do that stuff though (as Patriots fans well know). This is true even among the top ranks of WR, because teams are by-and-large selecting receivers they think can beat man coverage.( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) said:
I wonder if Belichick would seriously consider turning one of the wide receivers into a defensive back. Someone like Dobson, who is now far down on the depth chart but has size, speed, and good enough hands to be a WR. He's done it before with Troy Brown and Edelman of course, but on an emergency basis.
