To everyone saying that the Jets were 2nd in Pass Defense without Revis last year....

[JamesR]

Originally Posted by EM31

The problem is that he accepts a lower number now in order to give himself the protection of a signing bonus then how long before he gets to feeling disrespected again? One year? Two?

Probably depends on the structure of the deal, and what happens to the CB market in the meantime. At the moment the market for a CB is likely to grow ahead of the overall market, as teams get more pass happy ... so as with many premium positions, very soon the #1 paid guy gets overtaken by the #2 and #3 guys and wants to be #1 again.

Our main hope would have to be that by the time Revis wants to re-up again, his value to us is not so high (maybe he no longer IS the true #1 on the field). Then the decision to cut ties is that much easier.

[FootballFan1]

Originally Posted by blue eyed devil

as well he should be.yes,he played great.but his biggest asset is what the nfl is trying to do away with.how many 15 yarders were thrown at the ravens safties in the championship game? i counted at least 3. you dont pay a huge contract for a position that is being outlawed.same reason you dont throw huge money at rb's. its a passing league now.pay revis top dollar(not a penny more),keep cromartie,and draft a cover safety.

I'd rather have a guy that isn't afraid to lay the wood in the secondary and causes receivers to get alligator arms. A couple of hits by Pollard during the AFC championship game and patsy receivers started dropping balls in fear. We need to keep Landry!

[jetglass]

Originally Posted by JamesR

Jets ranked 20th last year in points conceded. Only two teams gave up more points and made the playoffs (Indy, Wash).

Our D needs to get better on that front or we don't see play-offs. (I also accept that bad O / ST's are a contributing factor too, giving up poor field position etc).

Losing what talent we have on D is not going to improve the overall situation. We need to get rid of the non-talent. That is not a process that can be sped up. Keep the talent we have and bring in what more we can through the draft. If we end up cap-strapped in a few years due to a new Revis deal, we can deal with that then.

But if we have no talent, all the cap in the world won't help you.

True, but theres a reason the NFL officially ranks defenses by yards allowed, not points per game allowed. A significant amount of points the Jets "defense" allowed were td returns against their offense and opponents starting drives on their side of the field as a result of turnovers by the offense.

[jetsmetsrangers]

Originally Posted by Green Bandit

.... You do realize we had a 3 game stint against Lindley, Henne, and Locker right?

Now I know we played who we were up against, but lets be real. Against the Pats, San Fran, Seattle(aka any team above .500), the secondary didn't look all that good.

I'm just saying for anyone for the Revis trade who says "Well we had the 2nd best pass defense last year"! I highly encourage them to take a look at who we played and you will notice the difference in the secondary between below .500 teams and above .500 teams.

P.S We're probably losing Landry and maybe Bell, so trading Revis makes no sense.


P.P.S Were also playing the NFC North next year (Rodgers, Stafford, Cutler) (C. Johnson, B. Marshall). I can pretty much guarantee if we trade Revis, we will not even be in the top 15 in pass defense next year.

We play against the NFC South this year....FWIW.....

[Ven0m]

Originally Posted by Green Bandit

.... You do realize we had a 3 game stint against Lindley, Henne, and Locker right?

Now I know we played who we were up against, but lets be real. Against the Pats, San Fran, Seattle(aka any team above .500), the secondary didn't look all that good.

I'm just saying for anyone for the Revis trade who says "Well we had the 2nd best pass defense last year"! I highly encourage them to take a look at who we played and you will notice the difference in the secondary between below .500 teams and above .500 teams.

P.S We're probably losing Landry and maybe Bell, so trading Revis makes no sense

P.P.S Were also playing the NFC North next year (Rodgers, Stafford, Cutler) (C. Johnson, B. Marshall). I can pretty much guarantee if we trade Revis, we will not even be in the top 15 in pass defense next year.

I'm not really sure what your point is.....cherry picking 3 "weak" games out of it doesn't make it so that we played a weak schedule any more then cherry picking 3 "strong" games out of our schedule wouldn't mean that we played a strong schedule (We also had a stretch from Weeks 4-7 where we played 4 playoff teams in a row, but I don't see you mentioning that). The argument is nothing more then cherry picking a random sample size.

[chesapeakejet]

Originally Posted by Ven0m

I'm not really sure what your point is.....cherry picking 3 "weak" games out of it doesn't make it so that we played a weak schedule any more then cherry picking 3 "strong" games out of our schedule wouldn't mean that we played a strong schedule (We also had a stretch from Weeks 4-7 where we played 4 playoff teams in a row, but I don't see you mentioning that). The argument is nothing more then cherry picking a random sample size.

In addition,

-How many "shutdown corners" were in the playoffs this year? Obviously a shutdown corner is a must have to make it to the playoffs.

-Also, how do we know he'll be the same after his injury?

[Ven0m]

Originally Posted by JamesR

Jets ranked 20th last year in points conceded. Only two teams gave up more points and made the playoffs (Indy, Wash).

Our D needs to get better on that front or we don't see play-offs. (I also accept that bad O / ST's are a contributing factor too, giving up poor field position etc).

Losing what talent we have on D is not going to improve the overall situation. We need to get rid of the non-talent. That is not a process that can be sped up. Keep the talent we have and bring in what more we can through the draft. If we end up cap-strapped in a few years due to a new Revis deal, we can deal with that then.

But if we have no talent, all the cap in the world won't help you.

Scoring Defense is borderline worthless as a means to evaluate a defense when they're unable to separate 'scores' that the Defense had absolutely nothing to do with (Such as a Pick 6, Fumble Return, Punt Return, Kick Return, Blocked FG/Punt Returned for scores), or drives where our O/ST simply gave the defense a pathetic field position because of turnovers/inability to move the ball/ect.

I agree we need to give up less points, but the point is an absurd amount of those points we gave up had absolutely nothing to do with the defense whatsoever and had to do with our other flaws as a football team. Yet, Scoring Defense counts them all against the Defense, which is absurd.

[Snell41]

Originally Posted by Ven0m

I'm not really sure what your point is.....cherry picking 3 "weak" games out of it doesn't make it so that we played a weak schedule any more then cherry picking 3 "strong" games out of our schedule wouldn't mean that we played a strong schedule (We also had a stretch from Weeks 4-7 where we played 4 playoff teams in a row, but I don't see you mentioning that). The argument is nothing more then cherry picking a random sample size.

Exactly. Furthermore we did not allow a 100 yard receiver all year. We may have been gashed at times, but it was never on the CB's exclusively. Our secondary is quite good without Revis. That's the bottom line. Do we need to pay so much money to move up just a rung or 2 in total pass defense?

[Green Bandit]

Originally Posted by jetsmetsrangers

We play against the NFC South this year....FWIW.....

Ah you're right I'm sorry. I mis-read the website. But even still, Matt Ryan, Drew Brees, Cam Newton, Vincent Jackson, Julio Jones, Roddy White, and Marques Colston are still scary

[jetsmetsrangers]

Originally Posted by Green Bandit

Ah you're right I'm sorry. I mis-read the website. But even still, Matt Ryan, Drew Brees, Cam Newton, Vincent Jackson, Julio Jones, Roddy White, and Marques Colston are still scary

Agreed!....

[Green Bandit]

Originally Posted by Ven0m

I'm not really sure what your point is.....cherry picking 3 "weak" games out of it doesn't make it so that we played a weak schedule any more then cherry picking 3 "strong" games out of our schedule wouldn't mean that we played a strong schedule (We also had a stretch from Weeks 4-7 where we played 4 playoff teams in a row, but I don't see you mentioning that). The argument is nothing more then cherry picking a random sample size.

I guess you didn't catch the part where I was talking about San Fran, NE, and Seattle (Weeks 4-7)

That further proves my point of saying that the pass defense didn't hold up against stronger opponents.

When you play Ryan Lindley and Jake Locker, while other teams got to play Kevin Kolb and Matt Hasslebeck (Not that big of a difference but still), you're team will def go up in the pass defense rankings.

My point is saying that the statistic shouldn't be a basis of argument in regards to Revis.

[Green Bandit]

Originally Posted by Snell41

Exactly. Furthermore we did not allow a 100 yard receiver all year. We may have been gashed at times, but it was never on the CB's exclusively. Our secondary is quite good without Revis. That's the bottom line. Do we need to pay so much money to move up just a rung or 2 in total pass defense?

And that's my point right there. Our pass defense wasn't all that good. Against lesser QBs, yes, but not against good teams.

FWIW Stevie Johnson had over 100 yards in the last game

[Austin]

Originally Posted by scottyM

The truth is that anyone who is hanging their hat on the fact that the Jets were "2nd in Pass Defense" is cherry-picking meaningless and self serving statistics.

How was the run defense? What about the scoring d? Forcing turnovers? The defense, overall, was borderline bad last year.

You could also attack it from the other angle -- when you consider how attrocious our offense was our defense actually played pretty well. I mean, how many TDs were given up by our offense, or directly contributed to short fields? How many 3 and outs? I'd be willing to bet our defense had terrible average starting field position and faced more drives than most.

[southside]

Originally Posted by Ven0m

Scoring Defense is borderline worthless as a means to evaluate a defense when they're unable to separate 'scores' that the Defense had absolutely nothing to do with (Such as a Pick 6, Fumble Return, Punt Return, Kick Return, Blocked FG/Punt Returned for scores), or drives where our O/ST simply gave the defense a pathetic field position because of turnovers/inability to move the ball/ect.

I agree we need to give up less points, but the point is an absurd amount of those points we gave up had absolutely nothing to do with the defense whatsoever and had to do with our other flaws as a football team. Yet, Scoring Defense counts them all against the Defense, which is absurd.

What's not worthless, especially in Revis case, is passing TDs given up. That's a stat you can directly attribute to Revis ability.

2011 we were 2nd (15 TDs, 19 INTs).
2012 we were 10th (20 TDs, 11 INTs).

I don't think you can only look at passing yards because the Jets were among the worst rushing defenses in the league and teams attacked them on the ground. The thing that I find more alarming about this is that the Jets gave up more TDs in the same amount of pass attempts yet had half of the INTs. That's why I go with the eye test.

[Ven0m]

Originally Posted by Green Bandit

I guess you didn't catch the part where I was talking about San Fran, NE, and Seattle (Weeks 4-7)

That further proves my point of saying that the pass defense didn't hold up against stronger opponents.

You are aware that New England put up 35 points a game and almost 430 yards a game of total offense last year, right? What we held them to (in the first meeting at least) was well below their normal standards, especially when you consider that 7 of those points allowed were on a Kick Return allowed. Not being able to completely shut down the NE offense isn't "not holding up", it's just being unrealistic with your expectations. They had one game last year where they scored less then 20 points of offense. It took them overtime to get to 22 points of offense on us, even with overtime we held them to 50 yards a game below their average.

The Seattle game was hardly a major achievement offensively for them either, btw. We featured an inept offense that put up 0 points of offense and was 2-12 on 3rd and 4th down conversions, that was completely unable to sustain any drives, giving them 37 minutes of time of possession and they didn't really do all that much with it. They had under 200 yards passing for the day. But sure, it was our pass defense that didn't hold up. Right.

When you play Ryan Lindley and Jake Locker, while other teams got to play Kevin Kolb and Matt Hasslebeck (Not that big of a difference but still), you're team will def go up in the pass defense rankings.

You're missing the point that EVERY team has a couple 'easy' games on their schedule, over the course of a 16 game season it even outs with the tough stretches like we mentioned above.

You mean we looked better against ****ty opponents then we do against really good opponents? Wow, who would've guessed that. That's common ****ing sense. Everyone looks better against ****ty opponents then they do against good opponents. That's why they're ****ty.

It does not make our Pass Defense ranking any less legitimate because all the other teams played similarly ****ty opponents.

And for the record, it makes little difference that we got to play Ryan Lindley instead of John Skelton or Kevin Kolb, or Jake Locker (Who is their actual starter) over his backup in Matt Hasselbeck. They all blow.

My point is saying that the statistic shouldn't be a basis of argument in regards to Revis.

Shouldn't be the sole basis, sure.

The fact that he's going to want an absurd contract has far more to do with the decision then our ability to withstand his loss.

Losing Revis will hurt. But there's 3 scenarios, you give him an absurd 100 million, 50+ guaranteed contract that is going to cripple your ability to add more quality players in the future, OR trade him now and you might be down a star corner, but will have some nice building blocks (draft picks) to build a brighter tomorrow, and that cap space which we can use for other purposes, OR let him walk after next year for just some ****ty comp pick (Which we all agree cannot happen). Question is which of the first two is the lesser of two evils, and I don't think it's a slam dunk either way.