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