Why Yes, I would Trade Revis

The thing with WR/OL/CB and some positions that wouldn't jump a QB or DL in impact is that you don't how much impact they have until they are gone. We saw for us how much impact Mangold had when he wasn't 100%.

 

Maybe it's time to let Cro go and have Wilson replace him. He's actually being paid MORE than Revis over the next 2 years (obviously that will change) and he's also not the best CB in the league.

 

So whoever picks Revis can have the luxury of shutting down #1 WR (that most franchises don't even have, mind you.) After Revis, nearly every competent CB is a fair game. All the more reason not to shell out on CB position.

And also I would like to add that, during Ellis/Abraham era, Jets didn't have the kind of fearsome back four either. Just they had two bookend DEs who could pressure the QB mercilessly. See how that turned into the production.

 

Mangold was replaced by a rookie street free agent who had maybe a few weeks to absorb the Jets zone-blocking scheme before he was thrust into the spotlight. That rookie free agent had a RT who was a sieve lined up with him.

I see what you are saying but the Mangold injury came in the worst possible context: the rest of the line had issues already and there was no competent backup available to center the line after Mangold went down. The Jets were going to a place they routinely struggle the following week. One of the most dominant front 7's in football was welcoming the team with open arms in a couple of weeks.

That injury almost destroyed the Jets already flawed plan to win a Super Bowl. If Sanchez washes out it will be a major factor in the end of an era on the Jets.

If Darrelle Revis was replaced by a rookie street free agent CB who didn't grasp the basics of the Jets coverage schemes and then had to go into the Black Hole followed by visiting the Packers on their home turf it would be a massacre both games. The secondary and the line are pretty similar: the weakest link determines both the ceiling and the floor for overall performance because that link is going to get picked on and attacked until the game is lost.

 

Fancy math, but could be said in simpler term.

Consider this Mediocrity Football League (MFL) where every player is equal in talent with each other, and coaching quality is equal to each other. Barring the draw case (just let's say draw goes to the visiting team, for the sake of argument) any given team in any given season is expected to go 8-8. This is because every team gets (almost) exactly same production, out of (almost) exactly same salary cap number.

Now, what that tells us is that, unless you can get more production than your competition, you are destined to finish 8-8. (If less, then you fall below mediocrity) So how do you get more production out of your players? You can think of two ways:

1. Buy all the high-production players no matter the cost. (= Overpaying)
2. Underpay your talent base.

Choice #1 is appropriate for leagues where there is no hard salary cap enforced. (Yankees, Man Utd, Real Madrid, etc) If there is hard salary cap enforced, then you must underpay your talent.

Now, what we must consider is, are the Jets underpaying Revis or overpaying? 10M+ cap figure tells me Jets are overpaying - but that's just me.

-----------------------------------------------------------

To sum it up:

To make a winning dynasty, there are only TWO ways to do it.

1. Overpay every possible talent out there so nobody else can touch them.
2. Underpay your talent base.

When it comes to Revis, Jets are clearly overpaying.

 

Actually I think the basic argument is that no CB is worth what the top CB's are getting paid right now. The top paid CB's on the Super Bowl winners of the last decade have not been in the top tier of compensation since Ty Law was sent packing by the Patriots after 2004.

Charles Woodson comes closest with an $8.4 million figure in 2010. Corey Webster was at $6.75 million last year. Ike Taylor was next at $3.6 million in 2008.

 

What's interesting is that if you look at the wideouts on the winning teams they're not getting paid anything like top dollar either.

Somebody has to be getting at the basic truths here and what it looks like is that the teams that win Super Bowls (consistently) are the ones that are doing that.

 

Spread the Money Around?

This is supposed to be part of the "Patriots Way". The Patriots have a reputation for not paying big money to their skill players. They'd rather have strong lines and decent backups, be strong all around rather than splurge in a few fashionable areas that get a lot of press. This was a big difference between the Patriots and the Colts a decade or so back. The Colts had their Triplets, then their pass rushing defensive ends. They'd do really great early in the season, but by late in the season someone important would get hurt and they'd be in trouble in the playoffs. There is something to be said for spreading your money around more evenly.

But you need stars too. Gronk just got a big payday, and Brady doesn't come cheap. There are trade offs.

The thing I've noted in recent years is spending a ton of money on one great receiver might not be as good as having enough receivers that cause match up problems that the other team can't double team or scheme around all of them. Two big tight ends plus Welker last year was cool. With Gronk hurt in the Super Bowl, only two big threats left, less cool.

Anyway, lots of ways to approach the problem.

 

That's a great question.

I think the only way you find the answer, is to analyze teams salary breakdown across the entire 53 man roster.

Just my opinion, but I would bet the top teams have some of the same things in common:

1) Salary spent on offense versus defense is close to 50%/50%.
2) Highest paid players on the team would be QB/DE-OLB/WR
3) Roster players 23-40 are paid at a higher rate (quality depth) than the rest of the NFL
4) Have no (or very few) contracts that handcuff the team cap-wise in the future
5) Offer contract extensions based future production abilities versus past accomplishements

 

1. My gut says that offense will be more like 53-55% but I'm not certain on this.

2. Sounds right. I don't think an elite LT has won a Super Bowl since Jonathan Ogden in 2000 and he won on a team that ran the ball first.

This is another argument for not concentrating value too heavily.

3. It's pretty clear at this point that 3 or 4 Superstars is not the way to win an NFL title. Triplets are a thing of the past. The last team to win with triplets was the Colts in 2006 and two of the triplets were WR's, no RB, The classic Colt triplet teams with Edgerrin James, Manning and Harrison never got to the show.

4. The Giants cap situation is pretty iffy at this point. Same thing was true in 2008 I think. The Steelers were not so good against the cap last year either.

I think it's a natural evolution of teams that have just won it all to have some impending cap issues they have to deal with, especially if they've won multiple Super Bowls recently.

5. Cheap talent is key to winning a Super Bowl. Having a few players suddenly step it up or getting a few guys very cheap in the draft who then turn into high production is an enormous benefit on the field.

Whether those guys are still a huge benefit after they are compensated at the levels their performance would suggest is unclear. Part of fielding a great team is getting more than you pay for.

 

I would think a team's highest paid player would skew these percentages accordingly.

For example, Brady skews the percentage toward the offense, Revis skews the percentages toward the defense.

 

Neither the Pats nor the Jets have won a Super Bowl recently so they're not really applicable to the argument. The question is: how do the teams that win the Super Bowl have their money allocated under the cap? I think the answer is likely to be favoring the offense slightly but I'm not sure.

 

Steelers ring a bell for ya, bandwagoner?

Unlike Pats, Steelers have stayed relevant for decades. i.e. starting from 1969 till last year, they had 10 losing seasons total. Guess how they did it. If you call that Patriots way as well, then I would have to tell you Parcells won the SB with Giants with Patriots way too.

 

Offense vs Defense

I remember years ago former Eagles head coach Buddy Ryan making the claim that offenses sell tickets and defenses win championships.

Is this true? Well, looking at the data, it would appear the guy writing the paychecks thinks it is true.

There is no doubt that the Quarterback is considered the essential, paramount, position in the game. Your season is virtually decided largely in part to the effectiveness and the health of your quarterback. The quarterback is clearly ranked number one in the average salary study.

A lot of money is invested in the quarterback (ranked #1 in salary average) and the guys how are paid to protect him (the offensive line is ranked #2 in salary average). If you take the quarterback out of the equation though, clearly NFL general managers and owners favor the defense.

With the quarterback figures removed, the average salary of offensive players across the board comes down to roughly $1,002,124 per year versus the defense $1,225,002 per year. Essentially, defensive players are earning 20 - 25% more per year than the offense.


http://turtledog.hubpages.com/hub/NFL-Salaries-No-Two-Football-Positions-Rank-Equal

 

Do you know how different it was prior to the salary cap and free agency????

That's like comparing apples to oranges. The Steelers dynasty of the '70's kept their entire roster together for years and years.

Compare the accomplishments of each team from 1992 to the present, then your conclusion will be a little different.

 

Contrary to your belief, 7 of the 10 losing seasons came during Chuck Knoll era. (He starts with 3 losing seasons before getting the Steelers going.) Cowher had 3 losing seasons and Tomlin had none. Now, Pats had only 4 losing seasons after 1992, but so what? Adhering to a sound organizational philosophy strictly is not all Patriots way.

 

Holmes is a cancer...get rid of him. I can’t remember a team with a shut-down-corner who won the super bowl. If Revis makes and issue about his salary TRADE HIM.

 

He can't be traded this year because of the cap. I know that's been said several times but you keep ignoring it.