Wouldn't that blow a hole in the "great teams don't need a 16 million dollar corner to win" argument?
Broncos and Patriots were in the AFC Championship without Revis. But with Manning and Brady getting close to the end their window is closing and they might be willing to make a short sided move like trade for Revis.
So they think they need him to win? Ok gotcha. Thank you.
Here's something to consider, sign Grimes (assuming that he gets to FA) for a 8-10m contract then put Revis on the block for either two 1sts or a 1st and a 2nd.Grimes is no Revis, but he's still a top notch corner and would come cheaper than Revis. We could also pick up a couple of needed draft picks without having to use one to replace him. Something to consider, but not something that I'm positive I would do, but it does make some dollars and sense.
Wouldn't that blow a hole in the "great teams don't need a 16 million dollar corner to win" argument?
Broncos and Patriots were in the AFC Championship without Revis. But with Manning and Brady getting close to the end their window is closing and they might be willing to make a short sided move like trade for Revis.
So they think they need him to win? Ok gotcha. Thank you.
No, they don't "need" him to win. But he's a great player and he improves their chances. Them being as close as they are to winning the Super Bowl they could see as worth it. Bucs are years away from being that good.
I'm not in favor of trading him (unless blown away with an offer, of course), but did have some thoughts about how it might look assuming we did. For one thing, it's pretty out of character for the Pats. I could see it with Denver. Why? Because Denver got exposed at times in the secondary and they are built for right this minute. Plus, they can cut Champ and create plenty of cap room right away ($10 million). Here's another team where it makes sense - SF. Wrinkle is Kaep's contract, but they can create room fairly easy with cuts like Gore (remember, they've got Dixon, James, Hunter, and Lattimore, and Gore is owed $6 million), and Carlos Rogers ($6 million). SF also has tons of picks - 11, and multiple picks in rounds 2 and 3. Here's the other thing - timing matters. For one thing there's the $1.5 million roster bonus - that's minor though as we saw with the Jets (they ate it). More importantly, we've been talking about the pick lost as a third. But that assumes he's on the roster by a certain date in March (same as the roster bonus). If he's not, it becomes a 4th. So any deal done quickly means we'd get our third back (lose our 4th).One of the biggest issues for me in any trade is that as soon as we traded Revis we'd have a huge hole in the secondary (and we have enough holes to worry about). It would basically require us to use a very high pick on a corner. And history is not kind to rookie corners, even those who ultimately come good. However, if we could nail down Verner - who looks likely to hit FA - it becomes a bit more interesting. Again though - that's why a deal would have to happen fast.
Wouldn't that blow a hole in the "great teams don't need a 16 million dollar corner to win" argument?
nope...ask the Seahawks, Ravens, 49ers....A better question would be is to name a championship team that had one DB making more in annual salary than the entire offensive backfield combined....
We can hope that Texans coach Bill O'Brien wants Ryan Mallett and would trade him and a third to Houston for the #1 overall pick and then flip #1 overall and another pick to us for Revis. The we can have our choice of players (Clowney, the QB's). We get the #1 and rid ourselves of $16 million in salary which would bring 3 players and keep our 3rd round from the Revis trade.
Unlikely, but I like the way you think Crazy.
