What level of compensation makes sense in a Revis trade?

March 5th, 2013 | Written by Kip Earlywine

Knowing when to pounce and when to walk away is part of what makes the Seahawks' front office so effective

Note:  Be sure to check out Rob’s article on Andy Reid below if you haven’t seen it already.  Rob tends to post articles in the early afternoons, while I tend to post them in the dead of night.  Often times we might bury each other’s work, so be sure to always scroll down and check.  I’ve noticed that comment activity seems to be much higher on articles that top the page.  We’d like to churn out content rapidly but one of the downsides is a shorter window for exposure and comment activity.  Rest assured that if you comment in a lower article we always try to read through and answer your questions.  So please don’t hesitate.  We generally check the comments for a day or two, sometimes more if it’s highly active.

Darrelle Revis was a Hall of Fame caliber player before his ACL.  Will he bounce back?  Will he leave after one season and be an expensive rental?  There are a lot of scenarios where dealing for Revis doesn’t make much sense.  I think it’s a reason why the market for Revis at least appears to be cooling down a bit.

So that begs the question: at what point does the price make sense for Revis and the risk that comes with him? The Seahawks didn’t think that Matt Flynn made sense for them last offseason, primarily because they expected him to get Kevin Kolb money. When it became apparent this was not the case, Seattle’s interest was ignited and they ultimately pulled the trigger after viewing Flynn’s developing contract situation as an opportunity.  I’m not sure if Seattle is wild about paying two firsts for Revis, but if the cost comes down enough, I think Seattle will have interest.  The question becomes: where would a deal begin to make sense?

First you have to determine how much Revis is actually worth. That leads me to a series of questions:

How will Revis play coming off an ACL injury?

A few years ago, the ACL injury probably would have killed Revis’ trade value almost completely, but in recent years there have been many cases of players returning to full strength after such an injury. Adrian Peterson, Jamaal Charles, Eric Berry, etc. Revis has speed to spare (4.38 forty) and that seems to be the common link between those who bounced back the best from the injury. You can’t rule out the impact completely, but it’s not insane to think that you’d get Revis type production from Revis in 2013. The injury does increase the risk though, and will certainly effect the Jets’ asking price.

How likely is Revis to be retained after 2013 and what might his market price be?

Revis can’t be franchised after next season and is seeking an insane amount of money in free agency. Whichever team trades for Revis will have zero leverage in contract talks and it’s considerably likely that Revis will hit open free agency next year. And if that happens, it’s anyone’s guess where he ends up. Overall, I’d say it’s likely that whichever franchise trades for Revis is getting a rental.

That said, don’t overlook the “upside” of actually landing Revis in a long term deal after 2013. Teams that make trades for rental types have generally enjoyed a bit of an inside track on getting the next contract. I think at least some of Revis’ high demands come from the fact that he plays for a lousy Jets team and probably wants out. If Seattle makes a deep playoff run (which I think is pretty likely) and Revis believes he is on the NFL’s best team, it’s going to make it harder to take that slightly better offer from the Jacksonville Jaguars or Cleveland Browns next march. Revis is already very rich, and I think the next contract is really more of an ego thing. If you make him the highest paid corner, that might be enough.

The highest paid corners in the NFL made around $11 million last season. Revis wants $16 million a year. Maybe after a very positive experience in 2013, he might sign back in the $12-$14 million range. FWIW, when you compare Revis to other high paid NFL players, I think he justifies that kind of salary pretty easily. He’s one of the most valuable non-QB players in the league. Or to look at it another way, is Revis worth as much as Zach Miller and Alan Branch combined? Because that’s what $12 to 14 million in salary looks like. Of course, you don’t want to lose essential players so we’re just talking dollars in expendable/luxury players.

It would be nice if we had a “wins over replacement” type stat in football as they do in baseball, then the calculation of Revis’ worth would be very easy. We don’t, but consider that this is a league where Brandon Flowers, Leon Hall, Chris Gamble, DeAngelo Hall, Nnamdi Asomugha, and an old Champ Bailey all made $8 to $11 million at the cornerback position last season. A league where good #2 corners like Brandon Carr get 5/50 contracts.

I genuinely feel that if you get Revis back on a 5/60 or 5/70 contract (which would make him the highest paid corner in the league by a good margin), you are getting a more than solid return on your investment. If he proves healthy and as good as ever.

How much is Revis worth purely as a rental?

If you deal for Revis, what is a reasonable price in the event he’s just a rental for one season? His cap hit is a reasonable $9 million in 2013. As expressed above, I think even $14 million is a fair price for a contributor of his magnitude. So his 2013 salary of $9 million is a plus, in my opinion.

Paying a 1st round pick in the event of a rental is far too much. I think a late 2nd rounder sounds about right though for a team that is front and center for the Superbowl discussion entering the 2013 season. To be clear, I think a late 2nd rounder is an overpay for one season of any player, but there is a higher chance to have Revis beyond 2013 if you trade for him and that added chance carries value.

I also think that one season of Revis carries a lot more value to a team like Seattle than it would to a middling team because it would make a hard team to beat that much tougher. Even if Revis leaves, would anyone complain about burning the #64 pick if the Revis trade helped us win a Superbowl? In a worst case scenario, Seattle fails to win it all, Revis walks, and the pick is lost. That’s not a good situation. So there’s risk to weigh.  Even in that worst scenario, there is tangible value in having Revis for one season.  Look at what major league baseball teams pay for star rentals at the trade deadline- for less than half a season.  They pay through the nose.  Sure, different sport, different value paradigms, but I think the upside of winning a championship or keeping Revis long term counterbalances the risk of having a 2nd round pick potentially burned.

How will Richard Sherman and Darrelle Revis coexist?  Do they magnify each other’s value or diminish it?

It’s hard to tell how Revis and Sherman would coexist as teammates. I think they’d make up pretty quickly, as Sherman is really more of a joker than a jerk and Revis certainly didn’t seem to be holding any grudges during his interview with Sherman teammate Michael Robinson.

It would be a really interesting competition dynamic to be sure, with both players competing for interceptions and big plays. I have to wonder if that very reason might be why Seattle was “highly interested” in Revis at the dawn of the trade talks. You know our coach loves competition, and a Revis-Sherman competition would be among the most epic in the history of the sport.

Having Revis on the field means more passes than usual will target Sherman, and vice versa. I think it would probably be a good thing forcing quarterbacks to throw more passes in Sherman’s direction, as well as Revis’. The passer rating on passes targeting Sherman and Revis are absurdly low. Combine that with Brandon Browner and Walter Thurmond covering the number three and four options, and you are looking at a secondary for the ages.

So here is where I think a trade begins to make sense for Seattle

Seattle trades a conditional 2014 pick. If Revis gets re-signed and remains with the Seahawks beyond the 2013 season, the Jets receive our 2014 1st round pick. If Revis signs with another team in free agency, the Jets receive a 2014 2nd round pick instead. If Revis proves his worth and signs an extension to remain here, he is easily worth a 1st round pick and the money we pay him, especially since that 1st round pick will probably be a very late one.

And before anyone flips out of the mythical value of a 1st round pick, consider the options Seattle had in the late first back in 2011, 2008, 2006, 2005, and 2004. Those picks turned into James Carpenter, Lawrence Jackson, Kelly Jennings, Chris Spencer, and Marcus Tubbs. You look at the late 1st round most years and it’s not nearly as good as you might imagine. It’s hardly a lock to get a star. Although I do love the late 1st this year, but that’s beside the point and trust me, this year is pretty uncommon in it’s depth.  Anyway, he justifies that cost if he’s extended.  This is Darrelle Revis we’re talking about, not Deion Branch.

And while I’m sure people are sick of hearing this, it’s possible that the Jets could have a degree of interest in Matt Flynn as competition for Mark Sanchez and that could have a minor impact on the trade details as well.

Maybe the Jets get a better offer elsewhere. I am not saying that we must trade for Revis at all costs. But I think if an offer like this is possible, at this type of risk/reward, the balance of the deal becomes one worth making.

45 Responses to “What level of compensation makes sense in a Revis trade?”

  1. Madmak says:

    It sounds like a match made in heaven actually. We are close to getting to the superbowl and with our youth will being contending for a while in our future. Why wouldn’t Revis want to come here to win a superbowl. Its a better option than New York, thats for sure. Maybe he and Sherman will bet diners with who has the higher stats every game.
    It could go the other way just as easily for other reasons. If i had to decide it, I don’t like it. I don’t like the exposure of this guy in Seattle. I think we only really need one loud mouth on a team .

    • juliyp says:

      It is tempting but do we have enough money under the cap to pay 14 million(even before starting to discuss giving up of 1-st 2014 pick)?
      Do we need to re-sign our own players (Okung, Earl, Sherm, Tate, Boldwin – I think most of them have to be re-sign after the 2013) or to pursue after Revis?
      I think to get healthy Revis can be my dream scenario, just don’t see it as realistic scenario.

  2. Michael says:

    My biggest problem with it is that we would end up paying Revis money that needs to be earmarked for our own guys in a year or two. Not saying that it would necessarily be the case, but if I had to chose between Revis and Sherman, I’m taking Optimus Prime every day of the week and twice on Sundays. I fully expect Sherman to continue his dominant play, and soon we are gonna have to pay him as much or more than Revis. Do we really wanna spend 12-15 million on two different cornerbacks?

    Also, one thing that I haven’t seen anyone address is the question of diminishing returns. Putting Sherman and Revis on the field at the same time means that on any given play one of those two is not matching up against the opponent’s best receiver. If this were 1999 and we had to worry about an Issac Bruce/Torry Holt tandem, or even if the old Fitzgerald/Boldin duo were still together and had a QB to get it to ‘em, it might be worth it. But is it worth paying one of our CB’s $12MM a year to take away the Brandon Gibsons, Ted Ginns and Early Doucets of the world?

    • Hawksince77 says:

      Concerning your last point about not lining up against the number one receiver, Sherman doesn’t do that anyway, given how Seattle plays defense. He lines up on the d-left, and Brandon the right. Every snap.

      That changed some with Brandon out, but I would expect Sherman to remain on the left next year.

      That would put Revis in Brandon’s place in base defense. In nickel I could see Revis sliding inside and putting Browner outside. That would be a tough secondary to throw into.

      • shamus mcgee says:

        no matter the cost it wouldn’t be worth it for a one year rental…

        • Connor Jackson says:

          That is a good point though Michael. One that I havn’t heard yet. Our division isn’t locked with GREAT #2 & #3 WR’s

    • While the point about the money is well understood, I think people fail to understand that not every big contract has equal value. For example, who gets you more value per dollar? Leon Hall and Brandon Carr, who combined make about $20 million? Or Peyton Manning, who makes $20 million a year? That’s an extreme example for effect, but you get the point. A megastar is often worth several magnitudes more than a merely “good” player is worth.

      Lets say it costs us about $14 million to retain Browner and Chancellor. Do you think they’d give you more contribution than Revis? That’s up to you to decide, but I wouldn’t think that. I think Browner and Chancellor are nice players. Revis changes a defense.

      Of course, you can sign Revis AND keep Browner and Chancellor if you want. Maybe you trade Red Bryant ($7 million a year) and draft a replacement, or restructure/release Miller/Rice if you wanted. Basically, the money that Revis would cost us wouldn’t come from the top of the roster, it would come from the “luxury” guys. Signing Revis wouldn’t keep Seattle from retaining it’s megastars, although they would probably lose a good player or two. Lets not forget that Seattle has some cap room to work with either, and most of their free agents next year are RFAs.

  3. kevin mullen says:

    I think our “interest” for Revis is only in part because another team in our division is heavily linked to trading for Revis, we’re there to drive up the price.

    San Francisco has a much greater need in this trade than we do, I think we’re there very much like the Yankees/Red Socks in the offseason & trade deadlines, taking players away from the other.

    • Eric says:

      Excellent point. Any time JSPC “broadcasts” an interest/intention, it’s as likely to be for an ulterior purpose. And I agree that even if our interest in Revis is legit, our interest in keeping him from going to SF (or at the very least, making sure that they pay as high a price as possible for him) would certainly factor into the equation.

      Nonetheless, the interest is real. Revis is simply too good a player not to be.

    • Probably. But my point, which seems to have been missed, is that there is always a point where an opportunity like Revis starts to make sense. This post was about trying to guess where that point might be.

  4. Hawksince77 says:

    Kip,

    Very nice write-up on the possibilities. Concerning Flynn, that might be the wild card in all this, and Seattle’s only true advantage. Some combination of pick(s) and Flynn might make the deal.

    A crazy idea would be to include Sanchez in a trade. That would take his enormous salary off the Jets (a one year cost to Seattle in a year they can afford it); provide Seattle with the number 2 QB for 2013; make the trade more palatable to the Jets.

    Maybe give them Flynn and Thurmound straight up for Revis and Sanchez. That would give them a starting-level CB (coming off an injury, and a player Idzik would know well) and a starting QB, in exchange for a player they want to move for cap reasons and another player New York is tired of (I know – I live here).

    Win-win.

    • Colin says:

      Even if you did eat Sanchez’s salary, that isn’t enough compensation for a player of Revis’ level. A 4th year corner who can’t stay healthy and a lifelong backup QB? The Jets will certainly want draft picks.

      • Jeff M. says:

        Leaving aside the question of the draft compensation (and I agree that there would have to be some), *could* we afford to do a deal of Flynn and Browner (I think this is more likely, as the Jets could feel like they were getting a straight-up replacement at starting QB and CB) for Sanchez and Revis? It’s hard to find very good info on NFL contracts, but does anyone have a good handle on what Sanchez’ cap number would be this year and whether we could cut him without much cost next year?

  5. Rick says:

    I don’t usually post just read but in this case I feel I have something to say. Revis is notorius for having to be the highest paid corner in the league. Anytime another corner gets more he suddenly needs a new contract. In my opinion with concern to our future as an organization we do not need that type of personality on our team. It is true that some of our players like Sherman may end up having this same mentality in the future. However at this time we do not know that to be the case. Adding a “pay me” player to the mix of young superstars will only make it that much harder and more expensive to sign our superstars when the time comes. I agree that Revis is a fantastic talent but the cost to the “team” I believe is to high.

    Another random thought: Shermans timing of his feud with Revis is a little too coincidental. Is it possible Sherman does not want Revis on the team where he is trying to make his name. The last thing Sherman would want is a shadow that he cannt step out of no matter how he does. It would always be (to the national media) about Revis from that point on. sherman has made it clear he wants to distinguish himself and having Revis on the same team would make it more difficult for him in my opinion and possibly in Shermans as well.

    • Eric says:

      It might make a difference in the locker room. But it doesn’t really matter with respect to the salary issue. Sherman will eventually want a franchise CB pay grade regardless of whether Revis is setting that scale on our team or any other.

    • Belgaron says:

      Sherman would love any highly talented player to play for the Seahawks, he wants to win.

  6. Dan says:

    Great read Kip. You put all your arguments in place and laid down a nice scenario where the Revis trade is justifiable. I’d like to take that a bit further.

    Most people would argue he’s too expensive and we need the cap room for future FAs. But if we gave them a conditional pick (like the one you explained) in the 2014 draft AND gave them Flynn, we’d free up a good chunk of cap space ourselves. We could then roll over that cap space and resign most, if not all, of our big free agents. The only problem with this scenario is the fact that the Jets are trading him to free up cap space in the first place. Is Flynn’s contract too expensive?? Who knows

    On a side note: Having Sherm and Revis on the same team could potentially be a problem. But in reality, having them both on the field gives them higher chances of interceptions, and thus, more money from their contracts (get 5 ints in 2013 you get an extra 2 mill, pro bowl you get an extra 4 mill, ect.). Just an added incentive for Revis to resign with a more cap friendly contract after the end of 2013.

  7. Brian says:

    I can’t agree with the way you’ve described the financial issues in bringing Revis here. Even if Revis is worth the money that doesn’t mean we can afford to fit him under the cap and still hold on to Wilson, Okung, Chancellor, Sherman, etc.

    Given the fact that our coaching staff has grown corners on trees, doesn’t it make more sense to use a fourth or fifth round pick on a nickel corner? We already have the best secondary in the league; any further money added there means we have to take it away from somewhere else like the defensive line.

    • Dan says:

      Ok so lets say we don’t resign him. The trade involved giving them Flynn and conditional pick in 2013 that weighs on whether or not he resigns with us. He doesn’t, and the cap hit he gives us this coming year does not count towards the 2013 offseason. We’d then be able to use that money on the FAs you listed. Really, the only financial issue with bringing him in this year is revolving around how much cap space we can roll over for next year.

      • Chris says:

        “how much cap space we can roll over for next year.”

        That for me is the deal killer here. Not even mentioning CB might be the strongest position on the team and the marginal improvement over Browner for $9m is smaller than the marginal improvement that would occur with an equivalent expenditure at other positions.

    • You probably won’t turn that 4th round pick into a Revis though. I think Revis changes our defense much more than people would realize. As I’ve said above, Revis carries a lot more value than all but perhaps Sherman and Tillman in this league. Passes that targeted Revis in 2011 had an absurdly low passer rating, way lower than what Sherman had.

      I’m not saying your wrong or anything. Seattle can stand pat in remain in a great situation. I just think there is a point where Revis’s cost is justified- even for us. He’s that amazing. This effort was about deciding where that point exists. Obviously, if it takes two firsts you run away screaming. Maybe some team might offer that. In such a situation, we shouldn’t, and very likely wouldn’t, see our team win that bidding war.

      I also think that people underestimate how strong our cap situation is. Most of our free agents next year are RFA, and while Sherman and Thomas are obvious must-keep players, guys like Chancellor, Baldwin, Browner, Wright, etc are relatively fungible. And if Seattle ever desperately needed money, they could probably rework or release Miller/Rice. I don’t think they want to do that, but they can survive it. We have an $18.5 cap number this season, too. Sure, we won’t keep EVERYBODY if we sign Revis, but it’s not the wrecking ball people think it is. I don’t think Seattle really intends to keep every good player they’ve ever acquired anyway.

      • Attyla the Hawk says:

        “I don’t think Seattle really intends to keep every good player they’ve ever acquired anyway.”

        Completely agreed.

        As the team moves forward in the next 2-3 years, I fully expect us to keep trying for 9-10 picks in every draft. But to start seeing us taking talents that aren’t just immediate upgrades any longer, and start (pre)loading talent at positions that we may already be set at.

        We’ve marveled at how this FO has pulled in talent, when the needs were so far reaching that every position was a position of need. As we move beyond a need based selection criteria I’m left to wonder how our current grading system of prospects as competitors to those on the roster will change. As the players in house generally become more accomplished — and the prospects’ ability to be competitive diminishes, how will our grading system change?

  8. JW says:

    28 years old next season, ACL, most athletically demanding position on the field, player who has voiced desire to be highest paid defensive player in the league? for a first round pick in a draft that looks to be pretty stacked? All for a position that already is pretty strong? Pass.

  9. Stuart says:

    No matter what happens, Russell Wilson and Richard Sherman will be Seahawks for life, book it.

  10. smitty1547 says:

    I hope your right Stuart. As for Revis to much money and attitude for hawks to risk it. To much of a me guy, are young guys dont need it. Continue on the path were on with good draft picks and sign are core guys for the right price to stay

    • JW says:

      I am eager to see how Revis looks this coming season. I think it’s a very good bet to think that his best days are behind him. The ACL is still a major injury, and corner back involves routine and key back pedaling and rotational push offs, and cuts. It’s a lot different than even running back in that regard. He’s damaged goods as far as I’m concerned, and aged and expensive at that. Factor in that it’s hardly a position of need and I don’t see much sense in the deal.

      If they’re going to toss around a #1 pick or more, it seems to make sense to look at a pass rusher than a CB.

  11. Travis says:

    We must first assume that Darrelle Revis is OK with this trade, sending him to South Alaska to play with his best bud Sherman. Then we’d have to figure the cost. This would be a great trade if we could ship away a first rounder for him. But, I find that unlikely. If the spotlight hungry John Idzik was to get rid of his flagship player, it’d be a blockbuster trade. Not for a measley conditional 32nd or 64th pick in the 2014 draft, depending on wether he resigns or not. Let another team overpay for him. He’s not the missing piece to our championship run.

    • We’ll see. The market for Revis seems to have cooled and for obvious reasons. Not sure what it will take, but that wasn’t why I wrote this. It was about determining at what price trading for Revis starts to actually be worth doing.

      I think Revis wants to stroke his ego by getting paid, and he wants to win. I’m sure he’d love to come here. He also talked in the video about wanting to be a competitor (presumably with regards to players like Sherman).

  12. Eric says:

    Rob, I know you’ve touched on this before, but I am compelled to bring it up again: Glenn Dorsey.

    He’s a DT playing out of position for KC; he was an absolute beast at LSU where he remains the most decorated defensive player in the school’s history:

    2007 Nagurski Award Winner
    2007 Lombardi Award Winner
    2007 Outland Trophy Winner
    2007 Lott Award Winner
    2007 Bednarik Award Finalist
    2007 Walter Camp Award “Player to Watch”
    2007 Consensus All-American
    2007 First-Team All-American
    2007 SEC Defensive Player of the Year
    2007 First-Team All-SEC
    2006 First-Team All-American
    2006 First-Team All-SEC
    2006 First-Team All-American
    2006 First-Team All-SEC

    • Rob Staton says:

      He’s a titanic bust. Playing the five tech in the 3-4 and the three tech in the 4-3 are different roles, but not to the extent where a guy who has been on the periphery in terms of impact is suddenly going to be having a huge impact. If he was a 5th round pick instead of a former #5 overall pick, nobody would be interested.

      • Attyla the Hawk says:

        One could have said the exact same thing about Chris Clemons when we traded for him.

        If we’re not in the market for a Desmond Bryant prospect, then getting Dorsey on a show me deal would be worth pursuing. If he stays a bust — he’s gone.

        We’ve brought in a LOT of lesser talent through these doors, only to see something in them that we can make use of. Do I think he would be a prospect that would call off the dogs so to speak? No. But he is a guy that could have something and did at one time. We know that there are mitigating factors that inhibited his productivity in KC.

        Additionally, KC is a pretty anonymous place to ply your trade. It’s like a Siberian gulag over there. Once you enter their doors, you may as well not exist. People still go on about how Poe was this huge bust, but the local consensus of those who watch their games is that he is turning out well.

        Similarly, KC fans seemed somewhat resigned to the fact he was going to leave. Obviously he wasn’t a fit there. But in general there isn’t this movement to hoist torches and pitchforks and drive him out of town either.

        I wouldn’t expect him to have a huge impact. He’s not going to cost us what someone expected to provide that would either. It’ll be pretty painless and cost effective to get an extended look at him and judge for ourselves if he’s capable of contributing in his natural position.

  13. Geoff says:

    Seattle’s early interest in Revis reminds me of their early interest in Mario Williams last year…

  14. Connor Jackson says:

    A couple things come to my mind when thinking about a Seahawks-Revis trade. First, if Revis is resigned after next year how would that effect the rest of our home grown players getting paid moving forward. Second, if Revis was to come here and then resign.. he’d obviously be looking at big time contract. So then, what does Sherman ask for because obviously players have ego’s and if you give more to Revis I’m not sure how that will sit w/ Sherm. Thirdly, I don’t like the idea of giving a 2014 1st Rd comp pick AT ALL because next years draft is so loaded. I mean I cannot wait for next years draft. The reason I don’t want to trade up to get Sheldon Richardson this year is because I know there are going to be a hand full of players that I’d be willing to trade up for and draft next year. Finally, I hate to say this because I don’t want this to happen, but with the wealth of picks that the Niners have it just seems as if they are more likely to get a trade done with Revis then we are. They have all the ammunition to strike a deal. Anyways, just some food for thought. Go Hawks!

  15. I don’t think anyone is wrong to question a Revis Trade. That said, with respect, I am a little disappointed with the comments in here. Not because they are wrong or anything. I created this topic with the hopes of stirring up a unique way of thinking about Revis, but I think instead it just showed how hard peoples mind’s are on this subject. Already made up. I’m not a fan of that kind of thing. I think we should always keep options open, and try to shut as few doors as possible.

    For the record, I am mostly against a Revis trade if the situation goes down the way I think it will. However, I also think that if the market softens and Idzik can’t find an eager buyer, at a certain point, a deal could make sense. Just like how Seattle didn’t want Flynn until his market softened. This post was about exploring how much Revis is actually worth, and what kind of trade would strike a decent enough balance of risk/reward/cost to make sense.

    • Attyla the Hawk says:

      I would never say ‘no way’. I honestly don’t see how any Seahawk fan can claim this to be so based on our track record of exploring all avenues to improve our team.

      In fact, that was a direct verbatim quote from John Schneider in his first months on the job. He was seen as a guy deeply influenced by the Green Bay model, but immediately, he showed that he was not a GM that was going to dogmatically adhere to his background. He deviated from that model on many occasions.

      I have to think that John considered how he would do things differently if he were running a team and thought about it over a long period of time. Pete is strong in his belief that philosophy and vision matters in how you build and organization and I wouldn’t doubt for a second that John would have shared his vision and how it differed from that of Ted Thompson in Green Bay.

      John has consistently evaluated all options to improve the team and has proven this every year. Yes, the draft is central to that goal — but John has a much more accepting approach to adding outside talent than his mentors in Wisconsin. I suspect that vision appealed to Pete very much.

      From a fit perspective, it certainly aligns with our aim to improve the team. Revis is a unique talent when healthy. I would expect John and Pete would hedge against the possibility that he doesn’t recover to the point where he’s no longer a special talent and would set conditions appropriately.

      If the market softens, then I see this team being creative enough to put a deal together to add him. This is a team that wants to play press man and leave it’s corners in one on one situations to leverage their ability to force mismatches in the box. Revis, if healthy, is an upgrade somewhere. And having 2 such corners, means other teams have no ability to avoid one good talent. I would want teams throwing to a Revis or a Sherman with no other option to create formations or motion guys away from our talent in an attempt to avoid mismatches in our favor.

    • glor says:

      Hey Kip, honestly before reading this article I was in the “No way no How” camp, due to the “he’s a me guy” etc etc. However after reading your article, and watching the segment on the Real Rob Report, I can honestly say I’ve been swayed the other direction. I would be totally stoked to get Revis if the price were right as you have described…. and seeing how you have portrayed him in the light of a real difference maker on the defense, I guess I never saw it that way.. however coupled with what Revis himself said in that segment. Talking about his body of work, and the fact that even if he has slowed a step, the fact that other receivers and players see him in that light, in effect gives him that step back. Couple that with the fact that he obviously gets the respect from the Zebras, and I still think he is and will be a damn effective shutdown corner, able to get away with a lot, due to that body of work.

      Bring him on!

  16. A. Simmons says:

    Not interested in a Revis Trade. I enjoy watching Browner. I don’t feel the corner position impacts the game as much as they are being paid. A corner matches up against a single receiver that may only be targeted on 30% of the offensive plays at most. That is a very good receiver.

    The more important element to a good pass defense is the pass rush. Disrupting the QB is more valuable than quality corners. Smart GMs know this and don’t overspend on corners. In my opinion corners are overvalued by some teams, those teams in general are not successful. If a QB has time, he will dissect any pass defense even if you have both Revis and Sherman playing. We watched this occur multiple times during the course of the season where the coverage broke because we could not pressure the QB.

    The reason why this is true is fundamental. You don’t throw at a good corner. Corner neutralized. Even if you have two good corners like Chicago had, you can find a way to beat them with a good slot receiver, TE, or running game. This is the nature of matchups.

    That’s why it is almost always better to focus on the pass rush and defensive line over the secondary. If you can manage to obtain the talent we have in the secondary, we’re set for years. About all we need is a younger, more physical slot corner to execute the type of play Pete wants. Otherwise our entire focus should be on upgrading the defensive line and pass rush. Trading for a corner like Revis would be a foolish move that would turn us into a team like the Eagles, more of a dream than a reality as we would find two elite CBs doesn’t make much of a difference in the win-loss column.