Poll: Calvin Johnson or Darrelle Revis

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from joepatsfan111111. Show joepatsfan111111's posts

    Poll: Calvin Johnson or Darrelle Revis

    Would you rather have Megatron or Revis? Assume the circumstance is both were FA and wanted a 4 year deal on same money and you could only have one... Which would you take?


     


    i would say Revis. I think defense is more important and in a passing league if you can have a guy who can shut down most WRs one on one is valuable. 


    Who ya got? 

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Poll: Calvin Johnson or Darrelle Revis

    I think you have to take their ages and injury history into account on this one, so I'm going with Johnson. He's younger and he hasn't had a ACL injury (yet). If we were talking about the Revis from four years ago...then I'm going with Revis. Hopefully that is the Revis we get this year.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from joepatsfan111111. Show joepatsfan111111's posts

    Re: Poll: Calvin Johnson or Darrelle Revis

    In response to mthurl's comment:

    I think you have to take their ages and injury history into account on this one, so I'm going with Johnson. He's younger and he hasn't had a ACL injury (yet). If we were talking about the Revis from four years ago...then I'm going with Revis. Hopefully that is the Revis we get this year.



    Well that's a good point. 

    I really meant it as both of them in their primes who would you take. 

    I really hope we get 2008-10 Revis... That would be nice to say the least

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from MoreRings. Show MoreRings's posts

    Re: Poll: Calvin Johnson or Darrelle Revis

    Revis, great DB's are such a commodity 

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from nightrider495. Show nightrider495's posts

    Re: Poll: Calvin Johnson or Darrelle Revis

    In response to mthurl's comment:

    I think you have to take their ages and injury history into account on this one, so I'm going with Johnson. He's younger and he hasn't had a ACL injury (yet). If we were talking about the Revis from four years ago...then I'm going with Revis. Hopefully that is the Revis we get this year.



    Mthurl, they're ages are a wash being that Revis is only 2 months older. I gotta agree with Joe that defense is the way to go to win the biggest games. Calvin Johnson would be pretty damn unreal to watch if paired with Brady though huh..!

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Poll: Calvin Johnson or Darrelle Revis

    In response to joepatsfan111111's comment:

    In response to mthurl's comment:

    I think you have to take their ages and injury history into account on this one, so I'm going with Johnson. He's younger and he hasn't had a ACL injury (yet). If we were talking about the Revis from four years ago...then I'm going with Revis. Hopefully that is the Revis we get this year.



    Well that's a good point. 

    I really meant it as both of them in their primes who would you take. 

    I really hope we get 2008-10 Revis... That would be nice to say the least




    Then I'd take Revis. The Revis that played for the jets before his injury was a dominant player...a guy that could change a game, and did just about every week.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Poll: Calvin Johnson or Darrelle Revis

    In response to nightrider495's comment:

    In response to mthurl's comment:

    I think you have to take their ages and injury history into account on this one, so I'm going with Johnson. He's younger and he hasn't had a ACL injury (yet). If we were talking about the Revis from four years ago...then I'm going with Revis. Hopefully that is the Revis we get this year.



    Mthurl, they're ages are a wash being that Revis is only 2 months older. I gotta agree with Joe that defense is the way to go to win the biggest games. Calvin Johnson would be pretty damn unreal to watch if paired with Brady though huh..!



    I didn't realize that...I don't know why, but I thought Revis was a couple of years older. I agree that a healthy Revis is the way to go, when he is healthy he can change games on a consistent basis. 

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from joepatsfan111111. Show joepatsfan111111's posts

    Re: Poll: Calvin Johnson or Darrelle Revis

    In response to DougIrwin's comment:

    Calvin johnson by a mile.  Revis has not had an elite season in years.

    He is moss in his prime.

    No wr i would take over him.  With revis, there are many CBs who are as good as revis now and have been for years.



    I meant with both in their primes. Also Revis is still prime. He hasn't had an elite season in years because he ripped the ACL in 12 then played in a crap scheme in Tampa last season. 

    You're nuts. 

    I'm actually surprised by this outta you. I thought you wouldn't promote offense especially passing and instead a shutdown CBCB

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Poll: Calvin Johnson or Darrelle Revis

    Tough choice.  Defense lost the Pats the last 2 SB's so I would go with Revis.

    LOL at Crusty not liking Revis because he is an ex jet player who he bashed every chance he could when he was on the Jets.  It must have crushed Crusty when BB signed Revis.

    *******************************

    Be a Fan!  But don't be a Homer Fan!

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from freediro. Show freediro's posts

    Re: Poll: Calvin Johnson or Darrelle Revis

    In response to TFB12's comment:

    Tough choice.  Defense lost the Pats the last 2 SB's so I would go with Revis.

    LOL at Crusty not liking Revis because he is an ex jet player who he bashed every chance he could when he was on the Jets.  It must have crushed Crusty when BB signed Revis.

    *******************************

    Be a Fan!  But don't be a Homer Fan!



    I agree here.

    As much as I would love a C Johnson player at his prime for one of our last 2 SB. Having a player like Revis from his prime would have been much better. CJ would have been regulated to the same treatment as Moss in the SB, the regular season is fun to watch an all, but people remember what happened in the big game. Revis would have helped more so both times.

    On the actual possibility of Revis getting back to prime time status....finally a full year after coming off his first season from ACL injury he should have a lot more to show. Not to mention being in a young and talented defense that is stabilized by BB will help Revis come back to prime time status. This defense is finally coming together, and like most great teams in the league, barring injuries, this defense will dominate most weeks, Revis will be a big key to that status.

     

     

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from cyncalpatfan. Show cyncalpatfan's posts

    Re: Poll: Calvin Johnson or Darrelle Revis

    In response to TFB12's comment:

    Tough choice.  Defense lost the Pats the last 2 SB's so I would go with Revis.

    LOL at Crusty not liking Revis because he is an ex jet player who he bashed every chance he could when he was on the Jets.  It must have crushed Crusty when BB signed Revis.

    *******************************

    Be a Fan!  But don't be a Homer Fan!



    Well, we have seen that having a prolific offense guarantees nothing...see our last two Super Bowl losses, as well as Denver's loss last year.  I'd emphasize the defense and go with Revis.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from joepatsfan111111. Show joepatsfan111111's posts

    Re: Poll: Calvin Johnson or Darrelle Revis

    Megatron isn't the only one who can beat double and triple teams. 

    AJ Green Julio Jones Brandon Marshall Alshon Jeffery Demarious Thomas Andre Johnson Josh Gordon all are elite big WR

    the only CBs in Revis' class to me is Sherman Peterson Haden and Talib when 100% outside of that, really no one.

     

    its ccertainly tough to deny Calvin and Gronk duo, I agree there. I just think a shutdown corner is a rarity in the league. There are many WRs with great numbers 

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Section136. Show Section136's posts

    Re: Poll: Calvin Johnson or Darrelle Revis

    Whichever one doesn't hogtie the Pats cap wise. Both pieces would improve their respective squad a good deal. But in the glory years all phases of the team came through at various, crucial times to give the team wins in big games. I want balance, not just inter - squad, but for the team as a whole.

    In recent years, the defense hasn't been able to get off the field - the offense hasn't scored at crucial junctures and the ST unit has very few big plays. In my humble opinion, no one player fixes this.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from getdrunkstupit. Show getdrunkstupit's posts

    Re: Poll: Calvin Johnson or Darrelle Revis

    honestly guys.  if we had calvin you'd be saying calvin.  stop the homerism.

    i vote front 4 D line.  it's the best thing you can have.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Poll: Calvin Johnson or Darrelle Revis

     


    To generalize the question a bit, I think I'd rather have a great defense than a great offense.  I haven't really done a careful analysis, but intuitively I think being able to prevent your opponent from scoring a lot of points is more advantageous than being able to score a lot of points yourself.  The reason (and again, it's my intuitive sense, not something I've analyzed and proven) is that if your opponent scores little, you are likely to be able to win the game regardless of whether your own offense scores a lot or a little.  If your opponent scores a lot, though, your offense has to always keep up with your opponent and that can be difficult.  To use an example, if your defense is unlikely to give up more than say 17 points a game, you only need to score an average amount to win.  If your defense often gives up 24 or more points, your offense has to consistently rack up scores in the 30s to win.  That's challenging for even the best offenses.  Having your defense keep your opponents'  score 3 or 4 points lower than the average seems easier than expecting your offense to score one or more TDs than the average.  Again, this is just an intuitive sense, but maybe I'll think through it with more mathematical precision sometime. 


     


     


     


     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Poll: Calvin Johnson or Darrelle Revis

     

    Another way to make the argument (and maybe it's the start of a mathematical proof) is that if your defense is poor, the average score to win the game will be higher than if your defense is good.  If you assume that the variance around the average is the same percentage in both scenarios, then the actual absolute variance in scoring needed is smaller in the first scenario than the last.  (I know that's not very clearly written.)

     

    Put simply--if your defense is good so that the winning score is usually about 20 points and the variance around the average is 50%, then your offense is almost certain to win if it scores 30 points (about one TD and one FG above the league average).  If your defense is poor so that the winning score is usually around 28 points and the variance around the average is still 50%, then your offense isn't certain to win unless it scores 42 points i(which is three TDs above the league average, and pretty hard to do in games where teams typically only have 11 scoring chances) 

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Poll: Calvin Johnson or Darrelle Revis

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    Another way to make the argument (and maybe it's the start of a mathematical proof) is that if your defense is poor, the average score to win the game will be higher than if your defense is good.  If you assume that the variance around the average is the same percentage in both scenarios, then the actual absolute variance in scoring needed is smaller in the first scenario than the last.  (I know that's not very clearly written.)

     

    Put simply--if your defense is good so that the winning score is usually about 20 points and the variance around the average is 50%, then your offense is almost certain to win if it scores 30 points (about one TD and one FG above the league average).  If your defense is poor so that the winning score is usually around 28 points and the variance around the average is still 50%, then your offense isn't certain to win unless it scores 42 points i(which is three TDs above the league average, and pretty hard to do in games where teams typically only have 11 scoring chances) 




    Nice! And I can remember our offense being put on that tightrope every single week a few years ago, where basically every time they got the ball they had to score because our defense was going to give up yards and points virtually every drive. You can't play like that, because sooner or later you won't score....there are too many variables that prevent that...holding penalty on the offensive line...dropped pass...fumble....bad snap...bad throw...bad weather...playing against a playoff defense in the cold. All these things are going to happen, and in the playoffs they let the defense hold much more than the regular season (which I actually like).

    Defense wins Championships, we used to have one, hopefully we do again. 

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from cyncalpatfan. Show cyncalpatfan's posts

    Re: Poll: Calvin Johnson or Darrelle Revis

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    Another way to make the argument (and maybe it's the start of a mathematical proof) is that if your defense is poor, the average score to win the game will be higher than if your defense is good.  If you assume that the variance around the average is the same percentage in both scenarios, then the actual absolute variance in scoring needed is smaller in the first scenario than the last.  (I know that's not very clearly written.)

     

    Put simply--if your defense is good so that the winning score is usually about 20 points and the variance around the average is 50%, then your offense is almost certain to win if it scores 30 points (about one TD and one FG above the league average).  If your defense is poor so that the winning score is usually around 28 points and the variance around the average is still 50%, then your offense isn't certain to win unless it scores 42 points i(which is three TDs above the league average, and pretty hard to do in games where teams typically only have 11 scoring chances) 



    But, isn't that obvious?  I mean, if a team's D only gives up, say, 17 or 19 points, then all it needs on O is 18 or 20 points.  Conversely, if the D gives up, say, 28 points, then the O needs to score 29 points.

    The problem has been that even though the Patriots' D has held the opposition to less than 20 points in their last two Super Bowls, the O has not been able to score over 17 points.  Seems to me, the way to go is to improve the D even further to try to limit teams to less than two TDs.  Hard to do, but it might prove easier than getting this O to become more productive.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Poll: Calvin Johnson or Darrelle Revis

    In response to cyncalpatfan's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    Another way to make the argument (and maybe it's the start of a mathematical proof) is that if your defense is poor, the average score to win the game will be higher than if your defense is good.  If you assume that the variance around the average is the same percentage in both scenarios, then the actual absolute variance in scoring needed is smaller in the first scenario than the last.  (I know that's not very clearly written.)

     

    Put simply--if your defense is good so that the winning score is usually about 20 points and the variance around the average is 50%, then your offense is almost certain to win if it scores 30 points (about one TD and one FG above the league average).  If your defense is poor so that the winning score is usually around 28 points and the variance around the average is still 50%, then your offense isn't certain to win unless it scores 42 points i(which is three TDs above the league average, and pretty hard to do in games where teams typically only have 11 scoring chances) 



    But, isn't that obvious?  I mean, if a team's D only gives up, say, 17 or 19 points, then all it needs on O is 18 or 20 points.  Conversely, if the D gives up, say, 28 points, then the O needs to score 29 points.

    The problem has been that even though the Patriots' D has held the opposition to less than 20 points in their last two Super Bowls, the O has not been able to score over 17 points.  Seems to me, the way to go is to improve the D even further to try to limit teams to less than two TDs.  Hard to do, but it might prove easier than getting this O to become more productive.



    Not to nit pick, but the Giants scored 21 points in Super Bowl 46...which is different than "holding then to under 20 points", because if we had held them to under 20 points and not lost the time of possession (and field position) so badly, we may of actually won that low scoring game. The giants were built to win a game like that...win time of possession, pressure without blitzing, run when needed, pass when needed and win. We obviously weren't built for that - which some would argue is classic playoff football - having a defense that can get that last stop and not let an offense drive up and down the field at will on you.

    People will say...oh we only lost by this much, or by this little play here or there, but that's big stuff in football. Huge. It's what separates a Super Bowl winning team form a Super Bowl losing team. I watched us win three Super Bowls like that - we were just a little bit better than that other team. And I watched us lose two Super Bowls like that - the other team was a little but better than us. It's not always cut and dry, but in these cases I think it was.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from NoMorePensionLooting. Show NoMorePensionLooting's posts

    Re: Poll: Calvin Johnson or Darrelle Revis

    Calvin Johnson....and it ain't even close...

    With Stafford as his QB....he's a game changer...google up his catch highlights.

    With Brady, his numbers would be sick crazy.... beyond great.

    He is indefensible and a game changer.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from ewhite1065. Show ewhite1065's posts

    Re: Poll: Calvin Johnson or Darrelle Revis

    I'll Take the shut down corner. Randy Moss was incredible on his good years but we still didn't win the big one when it was crunch time. We won Superbowls with pretty average receiving talent and great playmakers on defense. CB's have proven to be able to play late into their careers and still be productive. I'd sign Both if I could but Revis first.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share