Yeah, I can't help it but, I'm sick of seeing Revis interviews.. I liked it better when he was a great draft pick and great CB that Jets fans knew most about.... I can't go out and buy a Revis jersey right now - I don't want to hear from this guy till game 1..... SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You look at the good team Vs Bad team salaries like you stated - Also these guy's have to realize the position the Jets are in with all the contracts due at once... DAMN HAVE SOME RESPECT FOR YOUR OWNER AND TEAM - Me me me me me me me me me I DESERVE I DESERVE.... Bull..... Look at Brady - he wants nothing to do with a salary war thru the media and holdouts.. That's chicken shit.. Revis is going to get great money, now stop parrotting you Agents line of BS and Work at your craft and help making other players better.
If I'm a player looking to win a SB I would hope my team took their time and made sure they signed players to good deals FOR THE TEAM.... If not, you are not going to be on a winning team for long....
If he gets paid, he will go back to his quiet ways. Though I believe he said Rex asked him to be more vocal this year. Just not about contract issues I would assume, more of a team leadership role.
WHY NOT?????? If there is a cap on what a team can spend then the team is most likely going to spend the money anyway.... If Revis gets a million dollars less, I'm pretty damn sure that mil is going to go to Harris, Brick, Mangold or another TALENT that the team might need....
Do you even know what the purpose of salary cap is? I rest my case. P.S. On top of that, the message I quoted had the 'Salary Cap for every contract' idea. Do you think NFLPA is that stupid?
certain positions would never go for it, like the QB, and elite pass rushing positions (DE in a 4-3 and OLB in the 3-4), but the positions who traditionally receive less money might go for it. Your kickers, punters, OG, DT, and the like, might be interested in the cap. Think about it this way, assuming both scenarios require a hard salary cap ceiling as before this year, if the QB is always going to be the highest paid position, then those salaries will increase the most the faster, for instance they are already tossing around the idea Manning will be making 20 mil per with his new contract... if they do not put a cap on salary, then those numbers will keep increasing thus taking up giant chunks of the teams cap. Thus leaving less money for the other members of the team. However if you cap the max salary per player, then as the SC slowly increases, as it did yearly in the past, then the QB salary stays the same, then there exists more money to give to the positions who traditionally are paid less. That said, the NFLPA wouldn't ever agree to such a precedent, but at least the concept would make sense to me if I was a player of a traditionally underpaid position.
mambo my advice to you is to go into work on monday and tell them you would like to take a 20% paycut next year because you enjoy working in new jersey and have a beautiful house and a bunch of great friends. that AND that you are doing it for the good of the company. no wait wait tell them you want to make as much as someone in oakland or st louis that does the same job.
If you look at who has broken the bank in the free agent era it's an equal mix of stayers and free agents. My take on why the bigger contracts tend to be in crappy markets on bad teams at the moment is that it's just a random event that has gone the other way frequently. The Mannings are sitting on the teams that drafted them and making record money playing for good teams. Warren Sapp sat in the middle of the great Tampa Bay defense for years as one of the most highly paid players, and several lesser known teammates joined him at fairly stratospheric heights for a time. In terms of non-QB's the left tackles have been the highest paid position for years and they rarely are not playing for the team that drafted them, good or bad. What it really comes down to in terms of over-paying for talent is how much money the owner has and how much they are willing to part with it when their GM's begin talking about the need to over-pay to keep or acquire a high profile player. The Tampa Bay payroll was fueled for years by the fact that the Culverhouse family has a LOT of money and both the GM and coach were really good at finding and developing talent. It was a perfect storm that kept pushing salaries higher while the team kept winning on the field. In a few cases the owner is just a problem because they don't have a fundamental grasp of what wins in the the NFL, like the guy in Washington (clueless) or Al Davis (losing his marbles). Certain teams, i.e the Pittsburgh Steelers, never have loss-leading contracts even for great players. That's because their ownership is really tied in to what works and doesn't work and is further tied in to the fact that no one player makes or breaks a team except at the QB position. I'm feeling pretty positive about the Jets ability to maintain perspective at the moment, mainly because they were willing to let Faneca go and they haven't fallen all over themselves to re-sign Revis. If they find a way to stop the bleeding by signing Mangold to an extension I think we're in pretty good shape with Woody at this point.
I agree with an earlier poster, who mentioned a rookie-contract-salary-cap. Make the players prove themselves before they get the multi-bazillion dollars contracts. This would leave more money to spend on players that prove themselves, rather than the crap-shoot it is paying rookies.
It doesn't matter where you play. The purpose of salary cap is to curb the salary escalation. You cannot sugarcoat this fact no matter how you try. That's the bottom line. NFLPA is trying to make sure their players are getting paid. Why will they agree with an idea that will effectively put a limit on how much their players can get paid? On the other hands, owners want the salary cap in place. So there you go. You have legal battles going on and on. P.S. The thing is, you must have revenue sharing to make sure that hard cap works. Owners want the hard cap, but none of those 'big market' teams want the revenue sharing. You can't just have it your way in NFL. You've got to give something to get something.
