Can we please get Revis? Pretty please??

The Essential Online Seahawks Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. RATING: PG-13
Can we please get Revis? Pretty please??
Mon Mar 04, 2013 11:33 pm
  • It would be so dope to have sherm and Revis. I think it would play well also because they would consistently be trying to out perform each other and feed off that.
    Check out My Seahawks Youtube Channel:

    Image

    http://www.youtube.com/rxstr8
    User avatar
    FreshlySnipes
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 537
    Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 3:28 pm
    Location: Mercer Island/ Menlo Park


  • At what point is there a level of diminishing returns, though?

    I just don't see too many instances where making sure you've got an elite shutdown corner to cover a team's #2 is the best use of our resources.
    User avatar
    pinksheets
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2836
    Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 3:47 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • No secondary can succeed in this league without a pass rush, mediocre QBs can pick good secondaries apart if they have all day to throw. All Revis would be is a expensive distraction that ensures we can't upgrade the pass rush and improve as a defense.
    Last edited by Russell Wilson on Sun Sep 15, 2013 9:20 pm, edited 29-3 times in total.
    Last edited by NFC Champion Russell Wilson on Sun Jan 19, 2014 8:14 pm, edited 23-17 times in total.
    Last edited by World Champion Russell Wilson on Sun Feb 2, 2014 7:14 pm, edited 43-8 times in total.
    User avatar
    Lady Talon
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 757
    Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 3:55 am


  • pinksheets wrote:At what point is there a level of diminishing returns, though?

    I just don't see too many instances where making sure you've got an elite shutdown corner to cover a team's #2 is the best use of our resources.


    Are you creating diminishing returns or synergy? Considering the absurdly low passer ratings of passes that target Revis and Sherman, I lean towards the synergy angle, just like how two great WRs make each other even better. I think this is especially true when you consider that even our would be 3rd and 4th corners (Browner, Thurmond) are pretty damn good themselves, so passes targeting #3 and #4 receivers probably wouldn't be so hot either.

    Lady Talon wrote:No secondary can succeed in this league without a pass rush, mediocre QBs can pick good secondaries apart if they have all day to throw. All Revis would be is a expensive distraction that ensures we can't upgrade the pass rush and improve as a defense.


    Those aren't necessarily mutually exclusive things. You can probably trade for Revis and still improve, perhaps greatly improve, the pass rush.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 11218
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


  • Hmmm upgrading our #1 strength at the cost of picks, players, 15% of our cap, and a headache every two years when he wants a new deal? Not to mention with Sherman on the team it would be contract battles every of season between the two. No thanks. Browner is way better than just okay.
    Image

    Anyone want to make me a new signature? I've held out hope long enough.
    95% of the time I'm viewing here and/or posting is being done on a mobile device. Pardon any spelling, punctuation, or grammar mistakes.
    User avatar
    The Yugoslavian
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 879
    Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 9:45 am
    Location: Bellevue, WA



  • no thanks.. great player, but too expensive..
    _____________________

    Where can I find Seahawks98.com???
    User avatar
    Barthawk
    *Bacon Eating Crusader*
    *Bacon Eating Crusader*
     
    Posts: 2595
    Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:17 am
    Location: San Antonio, TX by way of Kalispell, MT


  • Trading for Revis is like trying to trade for Aaron Rodgers in my opinion. How many would do that?
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 11224
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • Lady Talon wrote:No secondary can succeed in this league without a pass rush, mediocre QBs can pick good secondaries apart if they have all day to throw. All Revis would be is a expensive distraction that ensures we can't upgrade the pass rush and improve as a defense.

    That's just not true.

    I highly doubt we are getting Revis but if we did our D would be greatly improved.
    SUPERBOWL!!
    User avatar
    Hawkfan77
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1675
    Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 2:46 pm


  • chris98251 wrote:Trading for Revis is like trying to trade for Aaron Rodgers in my opinion. How many would do that?

    How?
    SUPERBOWL!!
    User avatar
    Hawkfan77
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1675
    Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 2:46 pm


  • If CB was a glaring area of need, I would be drooling over the prospects of adding Revis. However, I can't shake the "Madden" feel of this potential trade.

    I'd rather use the FA allotment that has been set aside to upgrade our interior pass rush and perhaps add another on the edge. Head into the draft with the mindset of drafting the best player on the board and continue building our burgeoning dynasty.

    Now if Revis is the player that help the Seahawks win their first SuperBowl, it makes the argument moot, albeit post facto. As Kearly said in his thread, does the risk outweigh the reward? Call it West Coast bias, but in this case, I just don't see the acquisition of Revis being worth the potential cost.


    GO HAWKS!!
    "Doug Baldwin doesn't get separation, he gets a divorce." -NorthDallas40oz
    User avatar
    jman316
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 366
    Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 10:46 am
    Location: Kingston, WA


  • Sigh.
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 26418
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Kirkland, WA


  • We can't have both Sherman and Revis, and still keep the core of the team together. We just can't.

    It looks nice now when guys like Thomas, Chancellor, Sherman, Browner, Tate, Wilson, Wagner etc. are all playing for peanuts (comparitively). It won't look nice when we can't keep all of those guys in a few years.

    And you have to remember, we are going to be adding MEGA, MEGA bucks when Wilson and Sherman get their next deals. They will be structured cap friendly at first, but they are still going to be expensive. It's not too soon to start planning for that by being ultra smart with the cap, which they are.
    @SeahawkGreg

    Image

    "I will be thrilled with 10 wins.... If we win 14 games, I will tattoo my nuts green and blue!" --13thMan
    User avatar
    FlyingGreg
    * Master Chief *
    * Master Chief *
     
    Posts: 7534
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:19 am
    Location: CVN-68


  • While getting Revis would be a nice dream, IMO, a more realistic option would be Sean Smith. I think Smith is extremely underrated plus he's a FA currently. He wouldn't demand the $$$ that Revis does (at least at this point). He's 25 6'3 215 and is a press corner (much like Sherman). Browner can be moved to safety or nickel and Kam to OLB.
    User avatar
    hawkfan68
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 3803
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • So do you want him for a 1 year rental? Or who do you want to forgo re-signing? Sherman? Okung? Thomas? Chancellor? We will not be able to keep the young talent we have if we go and get guys like Revis. It is going to be nearly impossible to keep them all even if we don't make any big additions
    User avatar
    Missing_Clink
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2491
    Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:53 am


  • Hawkfan77 wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:Trading for Revis is like trying to trade for Aaron Rodgers in my opinion. How many would do that?

    How?


    You already have a elite group of DB's and Browner does the physical dirtywork for that group at a lower cost. Swapping a cover guy for a physical guy when you have your cover guy in Sherman on the other side already isn't adding a lot except cost. With Wilson here already and growing and being more Mobile would we gain anything by bringing in Rodgers except some experience and higher cost is what I was referring to.

    The money if spent would be much better applied to a pass ruhs which would help all 4 of our secondary guys versus trying to swap one guy out that doesn't bring any more of an advantage then we already have. Don't discount the physical presence of Browner and how he takes away one guy by just locking him up most plays.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 11224
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • Not really like adding Aaron Rodgers since only 1 QB can be on the field at the same time. But I'd say it's like adding another #1 type LT would be a better comparison. Have 1 shut down QB is nice to match up with teams #1 WR's but most teams don't have 2 #1 WR's requiring a need for 2 #1 CB's. Same as most teams have 1 really good DE you could put a great LT at RT but the value is just not there, you dont' need to brick wall OT's to have sucess.
    Last edited by Wenhawk on Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
    Image
    User avatar
    Wenhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2180
    Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 6:38 am
    Location: Graham, WA


  • chris98251 wrote:
    Hawkfan77 wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:Trading for Revis is like trying to trade for Aaron Rodgers in my opinion. How many would do that?

    How?


    You already have a elite group of DB's and Browner does the physical dirtywork for that group at a lower cost. Swapping a cover guy for a physical guy when you have your cover guy in Sherman on the other side already isn't adding a lot except cost. With Wilson here already and growing and being more Mobile would we gain anything by bringing in Rodgers except some experience and higher cost is what I was referring to.

    The money if spent would be much better applied to a pass ruhs which would help all 4 of our secondary guys versus trying to swap one guy out that doesn't bring any more of an advantage then we already have. Don't discount the physical presence of Browner and how he takes away one guy by just locking him up most plays.

    But we play more than 2 CBs on the field quite a bit and yet we only play 1 QB at any time.

    And no one is discounting Browner. But adding Revis makes us better
    SUPERBOWL!!
    User avatar
    Hawkfan77
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1675
    Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 2:46 pm


  • No it doesn't, part of our success is the physicality that we bring and intimidation. Browner brings that in a lot of areas. Finesse has it's place but when a guy is looking around to protect his butt. The Boom Squad makes it's living on being hitters. Revis isn't physical, also who do we dump to take on his one and done contract, we will not sign him for 14 million a year.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 11224
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • I think Revis makes us better without a doubt but no way we should trade for him

    Cap is $130 million. Revis wants what $15M / year so that is 11.5% of the cap on a CB? Then next year Sherman would require a deal that matched or was higher than what Revis got so now you would be spending about 23% of the cap on the two corners and the year after that RW may be looking at a minimum $15M / year - you would 2 years from now be spending 35% of your whole cap on those three guys.......

    By not signing Revis we are likelier to get some kind of Seahawks discount by Sherman. That goes out the window if we sign another star CB on top of that it is not the place to spend our whole cap space.

    With the new CBA in place getting guys out of the draft is the key to building and maintaining a dynasty. If you go after stars in FA you get one or two in a spot where you are WEAK not your core strenght area
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3502
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • chris98251 wrote:No it doesn't, part of our success is the physicality that we bring and intimidation. Browner brings that in a lot of areas. Finesse has it's place but when a guy is looking around to protect his butt. The Boom Squad makes it's living on being hitters. Revis isn't physical, also who do we dump to take on his one and done contract, we will not sign him for 14 million a year.


    WTF are you talking about? Revis is known for being a physical press coverage corner.

    As for Revis fitting into the Bengals defensive scheme, he is a match made in heaven for defensive coordinator Mike Zimmer. Zimmer loves his corners to be able to be physical, play man coverage and tackle well. Revis encapsulates all of those.

    http://www.cincyjungle.com/2013/1/26/3916494/why-the-bengals-trading-for-darrelle-revis-makes-total-sense

    After spending much of the afternoon playing physical press coverage at the line of scrimmage – constantly jamming and getting his hands on Ochocinco – Revis recognized an audible by Palmer. Isolated on one side of the field and facing third-and-six, he recalled a familiar sideline route to Ochocinco that the Bengals preferred to run in third-and-medium out of a particular formation. Knowing the ball would be coming his way, he gave Ochocinco a free release, then used his speed to run stride for stride and his body to box out any opportunity.

    http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=cr-revisisland011310

    If you don't want/like the guy fine. That's your opinion. But don't just make up and spout off BS to try and sway people in your direction...
    DJrmb
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 185
    Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2013 8:53 pm


  • No Thanks. Revis is a me first type that we don't need. And he will want a new contract. Whiners can have the headache that is Revis.
    hazaduz
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 40
    Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 8:02 am


  • Blowing the wad on Revis would go so far against this team's M.O. it would make JS's butt pucker.

    Yes Revis is a great player and yes he would improve the D in the short term, but it would be at the expense of so many other pieces of the team that it would never happen. Know who would make that move though? Ruskell. Nuff said.
    WAR BEAVER!!
    User avatar
    CANHawk
    * Gangnameister *
     
    Posts: 11433
    Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:29 pm
    Location: PoCompton, BC Canada


  • FlyingGreg wrote:We can't have both Sherman and Revis, and still keep the core of the team together. We just can't.

    It looks nice now when guys like Thomas, Chancellor, Sherman, Browner, Tate, Wilson, Wagner etc. are all playing for peanuts (comparitively). It won't look nice when we can't keep all of those guys in a few years.

    And you have to remember, we are going to be adding MEGA, MEGA bucks when Wilson and Sherman get their next deals. They will be structured cap friendly at first, but they are still going to be expensive. It's not too soon to start planning for that by being ultra smart with the cap, which they are.

    This.
    If money were no object, It would be fantastic to cherry pick every star player in the League and if there were no CAP we'd probably pulverize the competition, until some other team decided to run the bid up on some players, and destroy the whole system...No Thank You.
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3642
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm


  • WTF are you talking about? Revis is known for being a physical press coverage corner.


    Put Browner in Revis in a octagon and tell me who is more physical, Revis hand checks some, Browner knocks them off stride and out of their routes, It's like a boxing match with Mike Tyson and Sugar Ray Leonard, Both good but Tyson just has to land a few blows and it's over.

    Revis is no where near the physical corner Browner is, Atkinson and Tatum, Lott, Easley and Kam are the arena Browner is in.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 11224
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • kearly wrote:
    pinksheets wrote:At what point is there a level of diminishing returns, though?

    I just don't see too many instances where making sure you've got an elite shutdown corner to cover a team's #2 is the best use of our resources.


    Are you creating diminishing returns or synergy? Considering the absurdly low passer ratings of passes that target Revis and Sherman, I lean towards the synergy angle, just like how two great WRs make each other even better. I think this is especially true when you consider that even our would be 3rd and 4th corners (Browner, Thurmond) are pretty damn good themselves, so passes targeting #3 and #4 receivers probably wouldn't be so hot either.

    Lady Talon wrote:No secondary can succeed in this league without a pass rush, mediocre QBs can pick good secondaries apart if they have all day to throw. All Revis would be is a expensive distraction that ensures we can't upgrade the pass rush and improve as a defense.


    Those aren't necessarily mutually exclusive things. You can probably trade for Revis and still improve, perhaps greatly improve, the pass rush.

    Thurmond could already be our nickel corner if he's healthy, but how would Browner play inside? I don't know if he'd be great there.

    I get what you're saying, I'm just not sure shutting down #2s and improving Sherman through synergy (how much?) is worth the cost, which would come in terms of letting other players walk to afford this type of tandem. I could be convinced, but I'm not sure that we don't have to downgrade at positions that are far less strong than our secondary to pull this off.
    User avatar
    pinksheets
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2836
    Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 3:47 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • DJrmb wrote:WTF are you talking about? Revis is known for being a physical press coverage corner.
    If you don't want/like the guy fine. That's your opinion. But don't just make up and spout off BS to try and sway people in your direction...

    Wow, maybe you can pony up a few million bucks, put it in a bag, give it to Revis, and coax him into signing with the Seahawks for peanuts.
    NO player is so spectacular that he should be given consideration if he chances ruining the team financially.
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3642
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm


  • FlyingGreg wrote:We can't have both Sherman and Revis, and still keep the core of the team together. We just can't.

    It looks nice now when guys like Thomas, Chancellor, Sherman, Browner, Tate, Wilson, Wagner etc. are all playing for peanuts (comparitively). It won't look nice when we can't keep all of those guys in a few years.

    And you have to remember, we are going to be adding MEGA, MEGA bucks when Wilson and Sherman get their next deals. They will be structured cap friendly at first, but they are still going to be expensive. It's not too soon to start planning for that by being ultra smart with the cap, which they are.


    Agreed.

    In my opinion it is more important that we are able to pay our own guys in the near future. Revis would make any team better, no doubt, but we would not be able to keep our core guys; Thomas, Sherm, etc, all together. That simply is not worth it.

    I think we should all buckle up to the idea that Revis will probably be a 49er. It appears as though he would like to be there, and I think it is safe to assume that they are certainly interested in him, and they have the picks to make it happen. At this point I am just hoping that it ends up somehow costing them, assuming the deal gets done.

    Also, I watched Stevie Johnson beat Revis several times. It seemed to me that Stevie gave Revis the most problems. If he does become a 49er then I hope we pay attention to whatever Stevie Johnson was doing because it worked, and that was with Fitzpatrick tossing the ball!

    Edit: Further look at Johnson vs Revis http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/62603/steve-johnson-at-home-on-revis-island
    I wouldn't say he owns him, but he definitely has the upper hand.
    Last edited by TheLargentLine on Tue Mar 05, 2013 12:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    User avatar
    TheLargentLine
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 200
    Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 4:35 pm
    Location: Olympia


  • Put Browner in Revis in a octagon and tell me who is more physical, Revis hand checks some, Browner knocks them off stride and out of their routes, It's like a boxing match with Mike Tyson and Sugar Ray Leonard, Both good but Tyson just has to land a few blows and it's over.


    The question wasn't who is more physical. Browner is probably the most physical and borderline dirty CB in the league (not saying I don't like that). Put Richard Sherman in the Octagon with Browner and who wins? That doesn't mean he's not a good fit for us.

    You said:
    Revis isn't physical


    That statement is just incorrect. Tagging Revis as a "Finesse" type player is just not right. He's one of the more physical guys in the league too, and would fit right in on this defense. He's plenty physical but he also brings in some skills that Browner just doesn't posses. Revis wouldn't have been burnt by Wallace all day long like Browner...

    I absolutely love Browner and will be completely happy if we keep him, but Revis is definitely 100% an upgrade over Browner. That's just fact.
    DJrmb
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 185
    Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2013 8:53 pm


  • The Yugoslavian wrote:Hmmm upgrading our #1 strength at the cost of picks, players, 15% of our cap, and a headache every two years when he wants a new deal? Not to mention with Sherman on the team it would be contract battles every of season between the two. No thanks. Browner is way better than just okay.


    We have a winner!
    canucklhead
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 91
    Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:08 pm


  • I desperately want the Seahawks to consolidate and trade some draft picks for a player, but there are about 7 other positions I would address before I looked at giving so much and paying that much for a corner.
    "So between my friends and I we have been at every home game to date this year, and we have all been plotting the offensive plays called. " ------Anthony!
    User avatar
    Tical21
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1499
    Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:37 pm


  • If this thread were about Suh I would concur.
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 11251
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


  • FreshlySnipes wrote:It would be so dope to have sherm and Revis. I think it would play well also because they would consistently be trying to out perform each other and feed off that.


    Image
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 26418
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Kirkland, WA


  • Too much $ and coming off injury, but driving up the price on SF is a big bonus.
    Hendo66
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 513
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 6:28 pm
    Location: Scottsdale, AZ


  • $$$$$$$
    How many 49ers fans does it take to change a light bulb?

    None, they will all show and talk about how good the old one was...
    User avatar
    hawker232
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 165
    Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 9:18 pm


  • Nah, DE or DT are by far the biggest priority.
    60 percent of the time..........it works........every time
    User avatar
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2915
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • NOPE PLEASE
    Member of 38 Plus club. Seahawks + PC/JS + Russell Wilson = Superbowl XLVIII +
    User avatar
    rainger
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1733
    Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 7:32 am
    Location: Victoria BC


  • kearly wrote:
    Lady Talon wrote:No secondary can succeed in this league without a pass rush, mediocre QBs can pick good secondaries apart if they have all day to throw. All Revis would be is a expensive distraction that ensures we can't upgrade the pass rush and improve as a defense.


    Those aren't necessarily mutually exclusive things. You can probably trade for Revis and still improve, perhaps greatly improve, the pass rush.


    You're right, but it does make it harder to improve it. Especially bringing in a 9m dollar cap hit CB and giving up high round picks. We have little depth at DE (our stud DE is coming off a knee injury and sure to be playing at about 2/3rds effectiveness and need to be rotated, unless he's Adrian Peterson) and a need to improve 3 tech DT badly. No guarantees you can find a home run DL in the draft or UDFA, and the franchise tag scenario left mediocre FA DTs primed for large contracts.

    Hawkfan77 wrote:
    Lady Talon wrote:No secondary can succeed in this league without a pass rush, mediocre QBs can pick good secondaries apart if they have all day to throw. All Revis would be is a expensive distraction that ensures we can't upgrade the pass rush and improve as a defense.

    That's just not true.

    I highly doubt we are getting Revis but if we did our D would be greatly improved.


    It is true. Having 2 lockdown corners in a zone scheme isn't going to consistently get you off the field on 3rd downs when the QB has all day to let his receivers work seams into the zone and he has time to throw a good pass. Add pass rush that will have the QB cringing at shadows, make bad decisions, throw balls away, and generate sacks, and you can end their drives much more effectively, even if you don't have the best corners in the league. Defense begins in the trenches just like the offense does.
    Last edited by Russell Wilson on Sun Sep 15, 2013 9:20 pm, edited 29-3 times in total.
    Last edited by NFC Champion Russell Wilson on Sun Jan 19, 2014 8:14 pm, edited 23-17 times in total.
    Last edited by World Champion Russell Wilson on Sun Feb 2, 2014 7:14 pm, edited 43-8 times in total.
    User avatar
    Lady Talon
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 757
    Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 3:55 am


  • I vote no... cares to much about him. we want players that love each other and play that way.
    I don't know why I bother... no one cares what I think.
    zhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 521
    Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 7:35 am


  • SoulfishHawk wrote:Nah, DE or DT are by far the biggest priority.



    I agree....and the possibility of disturbing "team chemistry" increases with Revis.

    John and Pete will be happy to explain to you why we are not going after Revis.
    Bigpumpkin
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 4825
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:13 pm
    Location: Puyallup, WA USA


  • Lady Talon wrote:You're right, but it does make it harder to improve it. Especially bringing in a 9m dollar cap hit CB and giving up high round picks. We have little depth at DE (our stud DE is coming off a knee injury and sure to be playing at about 2/3rds effectiveness and need to be rotated, unless he's Adrian Peterson) and a need to improve 3 tech DT badly. No guarantees you can find a home run DL in the draft or UDFA, and the franchise tag scenario left mediocre FA DTs primed for large contracts.


    You can trade future picks, or you could trade a future pick during the draft to grab a guy you need. GMs are creative. Personally, I'd rather trade a future pick than anything this year. The #25 and #58 picks are probably going to be much more loaded with talent than the late 1st and 2nd round options next year, IMO. In other words, you could probably figure a deal that doesn't hurt this year's resources all that much. It might cost a bit more, but it's an option.

    Scottemojo wrote:If this thread were about Suh I would concur.


    Suh would be so much fun, but I suspect Revis would have more value, even for us. With Revis AND Sherman, teams are going to be forcing passes to the Steve Breastons of the NFL.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 11218
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


  • I dare say we all loved the well-roundedness of our D in 2012, except for...

    ...everybody:

    THE PASS RUSH!!!

    I get that Revis is the 2nd best corner in the game (pre-blown-out-knee anyway), but I DO NOT get why so many of us are going gaga for the notion of overloading a position that is already considered the best tandem in the league. Revis will want to be the highest paid CB, maybe the highest paid defender, in the NFL. Soon, so will Richard Sherman. Forget it.

    I vaguely remember the idea of Peyton manning in a Seahawks uniform last offseason. It got me excited. It didn't happen. Then our FO went and got us a QB who tied Peyton's rookie TD record and cost about 1/30 what PM did. In other words, we could pay 30 Russell Wilsons or 1 Peyton Manning. I'll trust Pete & John to upgrade our already elite D without breaking the bank for one guy, even if it is the 2nd best CB.
    Image
    User avatar
    HawkAroundTheClock
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1561
    Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 7:30 pm
    Location: Olympia


  • I just wish we had a way to keep him away from the Whiners
    Treefiddy
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 284
    Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:32 am


  • I kinda can't believe how much play this idea is getting. To me this is a no brainer. Absolutely not.

    The guy is a good player. I think he was once a great player, but I'm not sure he's on that same level anymore. Plus he's coming back from a very serious injury, and, maybe it's just my own opinion, but I don't see him pulling a Peterson.

    Plus, our defensive backfield is stacked already, and even if you consider him an upgrade over Browner, once you figure in the cost of his contract, I just don't think it's a good idea.
    Image
    User avatar
    SirTed
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 732
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:25 am
    Location: Queen Anne


  • If we were going to pursue a trade with another team and send them a boatload of draft picks and pay that player a good chunk of money, I'd rather it go towards a premiere pass rusher in the league rather than another DB.
    Image
    User avatar
    Winterfell
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 128
    Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 3:55 pm
    Location: The Wall


  • Treefiddy wrote:I just wish we had a way to keep him away from the Whiners


    Don't worry about the Niners. They're not going to be trading a bunch of draft picks for Revis because it doesn't make sense for them. They can't afford him and with his knee, nobody knows for sure if he is even the Revis we all think we know. They aren't even going to be able to retain Goldson. And, it damn well doesn't make sense for the Seahawks. The Seahawks already have two real good corners, one of which qualifies as a shut-down corner.
    BBHawks
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 44
    Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 4:21 pm


  • Im just surprised no one mentioned that Revis and Sherman have had public beef with each other. So even if it were to happen, we'd have to spend some time getting those two to get along. Additional crap to deal with.
    gspin2k1
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 204
    Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 2:09 pm


  • gspin2k1 wrote:Im just surprised no one mentioned that Revis and Sherman have had public beef with each other. So even if it were to happen, we'd have to spend some time getting those two to get along. Additional crap to deal with.


    It is additional $$$$$ to deal with

    Don't believe for one second that Sherman signs for a penny less than Revis and probably demands at least one penny more than Revis if Revis is on the team.

    AND HE SHOULD

    If Revis is not on the team I don't think Sherman will have the ego that demands exactly the highest amount for a CB even if it will be up there
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3502
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • Revis = poison
    We don't want him.
    SUPERBOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS
    GO 'HAWKS!!
    WmHBonney
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 197
    Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:11 pm


  • It just seems to me that ROI of Revis wouldn't be very high considering the level the Hawks secondary plays at.

    Browner is the prototype Seahawk, the non-traditional body for the position, but gets awesome results. I like that, but I also like BB's dominance as a run-stopper. I was watching some analysis on Revis where his ability to tackle was pointed our, but BB can do that, while knocking the guy back to 1995 and getting the ball out while he is at it.

    If the Hawks get a DL player who can create pressure, it will amplify the secondary play by a factor of 3. I would rather spend money there and let our already nasty DB's reap the fruit.
    "The life you lose may be your own" - Drunk dude at the bar
    User avatar
    loafoftatupu
    I'M JIMMY!
     
    Posts: 5885
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:17 pm
    Location: Auburn, WA


Next


It is currently Thu Oct 23, 2014 3:46 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information
  • Who is online