the season is still a month away so that's a pretty empty threat right now but it's not encouraging to hear (altho since it's an espn report its probably hornet)
Yeah and that reason was Peyton Manning torching us with Garcon and Collie in the Championship game against our humpty-dumpty corners while Revis was neutralizing Reggie Wayne. I don't think there was any real hint of a Revis problem back at the draft anyway, certainly not to this extent.
I'm not sure if anyone caught this. Revis' last tweet was to someone named "Wild For Woody": I found out that Wild For Woody is actually Woody's fan club, and not Damien Woody himself. Apparently Revis thought this was Woody's twitter account, and he tweeted that in response to this: Thought that was pretty funny.
you don't let a player of Revis' caliber go. do you let Jerry Rice go? How about Peyton Manning? The Jets know this and will find a way to sign Revis. As a lifelong Jets fan, I am so happy to finally have a player like that on our team for once. A once in a million, special position player that will be remembered and be a first ballot hall of famer. all that said, it might be a while. let's take bets as to how many pages this thread will end up being. I'm going to make the first bet: 1,273 pages price is right rules
The Darrelle Revis Holdout Thread Yeah that was this guy I tweet with, we came up with that name for a Damien Woody fan club. After that interaction I told him this is supposed to be a fan club, not you posing as him. Lol
Great example of why, like I said, they need to fix the system. Holdouts are an accepted part of the business today because the system is flawed. As has been pointed out several times now by others, it's a concession made by the owners because of the nature of contracts in the NFL. A rookie pay scale and shorter term initial contracts with longer term restrictions on free agency would go a long way to eliminating the acceptance of holdouts. The Jets recognize the complications of the situation. If they didn't recognize that fact, they would absolutely consider it basic extortion and force him to sit, fail to accrue the necessary seasons for UFA, and hold his rights until he begged to play again. Instead, they continue to bargain. You're absolutely right, however, that a $15+ million contract would be a terrible decision. Not only would it encourage other players to hold out (an encouragement no doubt also spurred by the team's own advances, which will likely cease to be standard Jet management practice), but it would also make it completely untenable to sign the remaining members of the Core 4. If Revis is going to demand an impossible contract, I'd prefer the Jets part ways and focus that money on extending Mangold and Harris and retaining the services of BOTH of our new wide receivers. There is a question of locker room attitude in that situation, and I still hope and believe it won't come to that, but it would most certainly be the more prudent decision. (Side note for my dear friend AS: If you'd care to respond to the above, I welcome the discourse. If you're going to re-spew more strict legal terminology that adds nothing to the discussion of the realities of the situation, I'd ask that you simply link to your prior redundancy. Thank you in advance.)
You are welcome. If you don't understand the difference between breaching a contract and terminating a contract, then its necessary to explain that to you in order to have a discussion of the differences between a player trying to extort a new contract from a team and a team cutting a player through the termination provision. If you are now clear on that distinction then hopefully it won't be necessary to revisit the issue. However since you spent several pages insisting that cutting a player was the same as holding out, it became necessary to point out why it is that you were wrong about that. If Revis is going to sit out and demand an unreasonable deal that would prevent us from signing Mangold and Harris then the Jets should let him sit as long as he likes. I would not be inclined to trade him at all. I would like to sign him sooner or later. The Jets can afford to wait him out. After a season of sitting there not getting paid and racking up fines and watching other players make new deals and win titles and make millions more in endorsements and appearances, he will realize that his agents misled him and that he recieved shitty advice and then he will fire those bozos and instruct his new agents to get him a deal. I think Revis is the best player on the team and deserves a nice fat new contrtact. But if he refuses to play football and takes an untenable negotiating position then If I'm the Jets I let him sit and I consider going after the bonus money I paid to him in good faith under a contract that he refused to live up to. I would not give in to the hold out/extortion tactic. I could care less if other owners would typically give in or if some of them don't think of refusing to perform as you promised as being a breach. If he wants a new deal, that deal has to contemplate the fact that the Jets can ice him for years if they want to and that they are not going to compromise the future of the team for one superstar CB to be overpaid.
which is more than can be said for you obviously. relying on fake quotes is pretty much the lowest form of message board idiocy and dishonesty. thanks for wasting your time on me however.
*Sigh* I'm not really interested in continuing to belabor it. I'll explain one last time and then leave you to interpret my stance, and my intelligence, however you see fit. I'm aware of what a contract is. I'm aware of what a breach of contract is. I'm aware of what termination of a contract is. My point, as always, has been that a holdout in the NFL is not simple breach of contract. If it were, we wouldn't see it so often. Owners recognize it as the only hard line tactic players have at their disposal (the, as I said, empty threat to quit), and they allow for it as the price of doing business within the NFL system. This isn't a failure to understand the meaning of a contract. It's understanding that the way in which contracts are treated in the NFL is a unique system, and conversations with past players and owners/CEOs in other Big 4 sports back my stance up. Calling it nothing more than extortion or a breach of contract akin to one we'd find in our own experiences is disingenuous to the real situation at hand. While I'd love to have Revis in camp right now, I'm not going to pretend that a rookie seeking a new deal, particularly given the parameters, when he's outplayed his contract is an egregious affront. It's a symptom of the disease, and one that the NFL has learned to live with. His specific monetary demands and refusal to even meet with the team at this point? He can GTFO with that.
On Orders from Woody, Tanny immediately talked to Revis about contracts right after the game in Indy. (read it somewhere)
