Revis officially retires

[The Crusher]

3 hours ago, prime21 said:

There is always a debate when comparing players in different eras in all sports. 

As far as coverage, Revis was a shutdown corner and  had those string of years where his body of work is probably the best ever at the position.  QB's needed to basically work a game plan to win without throwing to whoever he was covering.  Deion was a cover corner that took more chances that led to more interceptions and td's while still providing excellent coverage.

If I'm creating a team from scratch, when it's time to pick a CB I would take Deion over Revis because he was an all around better player. He was a dangerous returner and can spread the field on offense.

No surprise in my pick since I am Prime21

 

 

All true but Revis when he still did it was a much better tackler than Deion. But later in this career he developed am allergic reaction to tackling and contact.

[Matt39]

I mean there is something to be said about the other marquee corners basically doubling Revis' interception totals. The only years he wasnt being thrown at were 2010-11. And he missed games in 2010. 

Ronde Barber had 47 career picks, 14 forced fumbles , 28 sacks(!), and 14 touchdowns. Also won a Super Bowl. 

The lack of turnovers is certainly a knock. He was also released like 4 times, which has to be a first for a HOF player before the age of 34.

[Integrity28]

Just now, TeddEY said:

Did you eat avacado toast, snowflake?

I did, in fact. I shared some with my intellectually elite transgender black-Mexican adopted illegal immigrant friend while we discussed blue laws, free healthcare and how to violate the rights of American Nazis.

It was quite a charming afternoon, really. Filled with laughs and contemplation. 

[Integrity28]

4 hours ago, nyjunc said:

you really do compose incredible arguments in favor of your opinions.

While you compose opinions and position them as facts. Neither of you make any ******* sense.

[The Crusher]

4 minutes ago, Integrity28 said:

I did, in fact. I shared some with my intellectually elite transgender black-Mexican adopted illegal immigrant friend while we discussed blue laws, free healthcare and how to violate the rights of American Nazis.

It was quite a charming afternoon, really. Filled with laughs and contemplation. 

Evolution is a beautiful thing.

[Jet Nut]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

What are you talking about?

First, you're clearly just looking for something and are so blinded by trying to score on me you're missing the entire point: despite others suggesting the reason Revis had fewer picks was nobody threw at him I'm making the point that Revis was thrown at a lot. And to this you counter with "WRONG -- he WAS thrown at!!"

Next, Nnamdi was given half the field (typically the QB's left side I think) and whichever WR lined up to that side. Since it was always the same side, OCs just exploited the other half (or the middle) of the field by moving their best targets there and that's where QBs threw. He wasn't so perfect as a zone corner on either team, as dozens who watched him more closely point out. Perhaps I suppose I should just take your word over those Oakland/Philly fans who watched him closely on every play.

• https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1581598-breaking-down-everything-you-need-to-know-about-nnamdi-asomugha (re: failing in Philly zone D)
• https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/why-some-corners-cant-play-zone-coverage
• https://www.mercurynews.com/2010/10/21/zone-coverage-exposes-a-black-hole-in-oakland-raiders-defense/

I'm sure if I wanted to look for more than 2 minutes I could find only 50 more examples, but here's a good quote from the 2nd article above, with film to back it up:

Regardless, on neither team was he in a pure zone scheme all the time; they went in & out depending on situation. If he was purely playing off receivers in Oakland, then he wouldn't have been thought of so highly. My point is he wasn't the cover corner Revis was, and sticking like glue and surrendering few completions/yds/TDs what gives any "NFL's Best CB" his name.

He was simply tested less, and since he always played on the same side (as opposed to Revis, who shadowed the other team's #1 no matter where he went, which is what made playing against us comparatively difficult for #1-type WRs), teams could just line up Marshall, Bowe, VJ, or whomever on the non-Nnamdi side. When there was no point in doing that in Philadelphia, with Samuel on the other side, he was tested more by better WRs. 

I stand corrected then.  But IMO here is no comparison with Nandi and Revis.  Revis was much better, regardless of who was on the other side of the field.

[JetFaninMI]

7 hours ago, nyjunc said:

You are allowed to hold whatever opinion you want, I am allowed to try to inject facts into the discussions.

The HOF is about greatness not longevity.  usually the great players have longevity but it's not like Revis played 3 seasons.  he still had a long career just not as long as some other greats and he did more in less time than the majority of HOF CBs.

More JUNC Logic. Thank You for allowing someone to form an opinion. You think your opinions are fact when they are merely YOUR opinion. Since you cannot differentiate between the two whats the point?

The HOF is about SUSTAINED GREATNESS over a CAREER. Revis had what 4-5 good to great seasons over his career? The other years he either mailed it in or was physically unable to play on the level he established. Playing at a high level for half your career doesn't make you a HOF'er. It makes you a player worth mentioning but not elite. Here's a participation trophy for your effort. That should make you happy:

[Sperm Edwards]

2 hours ago, Jet Nut said:

I stand corrected then.  But IMO here is no comparison with Nandi and Revis.  Revis was much better, regardless of who was on the other side of the field.

That’s what I said and you started arguing with me about it.

[#27TheDominator]

30 minutes ago, JetFaninMI said:

More JUNC Logic. Thank You for allowing someone to form an opinion. You think your opinions are fact when they are merely YOUR opinion. Since you cannot differentiate between the two whats the point?

The HOF is about SUSTAINED GREATNESS over a CAREER. Revis had what 4-5 good to great seasons over his career? The other years he either mailed it in or was physically unable to play on the level he established. Playing at a high level for half your career doesn't make you a HOF'er. It makes you a player worth mentioning but not elite. Here's a participation trophy for your effort. That should make you happy:

How much "sustained greatness" did Gale Sayers have? I would say that being elite makes you "Elite".  Not years of very good play. It is the Hall of Fame anyway, not the Hall of Elite or Hall of Sustained Greatness.

[JetFaninMI]

2 hours ago, #27TheDominator said:

How much "sustained greatness" did Gale Sayers have? I would say that being elite makes you "Elite".  Not years of very good play. It is the Hall of Fame anyway, not the Hall of Elite or Hall of Sustained Greatness.

LOL.  You have to be kidding me. Gale Sayers? Ever see him play? I have. You wouldn't have used him as an example if you did. Sayers played in an era when there were considerably less teams in the league and only the best players played. He was facing defensive units who if they played today would be ALL-PROS. Not just one guy on the team but mostly all of them. Being elite makes you elite. What makes you elite is to be the best at your position. What makes you a HOF'er is being the best throughout your career. Being good for a 4-5 years and mailing it in the rest does not a HOF'er make.

 

[#27TheDominator]

7 minutes ago, JetFaninMI said:

LOL.  You have to be kidding me. Gale Sayers? Ever see him play? I have. You wouldn't have used him as an example if you did. Sayers played in an era when there were considerably less teams in the league and only the best players played. He was facing defensive units who if they played today would be ALL-PROS. Not just one guy on the team but mostly all of them. Being elite makes you elite. What makes you elite is to be the best at your position. What makes you a HOF'er is being the best throughout your career. Being good for a 4-5 years and mailing it in the rest does not a HOF'er make.

 

You're loling me?  What does the number of teams have to do with anything?  You give a long drawn out explanation of how great Sayers was but run say 4-5 years wasn't enough.  Guess his entry was a mistake 

[JetFaninMI]

22 hours ago, #27TheDominator said:

You're loling me?  What does the number of teams have to do with anything?  You give a long drawn out explanation of how great Sayers was but run say 4-5 years wasn't enough.  Guess his entry was a mistake 

Yes I am LOLING you. The number of teams is highly significant. It means there were less roster spaces available so only the best players made those rosters. Seriously?

[JetFaninMI]

On 7/19/2018 at 6:15 PM, #27TheDominator said:

How much "sustained greatness" did Gale Sayers have? I would say that being elite makes you "Elite".  Not years of very good play. It is the Hall of Fame anyway, not the Hall of Elite or Hall of Sustained Greatness.

Going back to this gem of a post. What exactly does this mean? You think the HOF is based on popularity? The HOF is for the best that EVER PLAYED THE GAME. That means only the ELITE or GREATEST players make it. Come on, you're better than this.

[nyjunc]

On 7/19/2018 at 5:39 PM, JetFaninMI said:

More JUNC Logic. Thank You for allowing someone to form an opinion. You think your opinions are fact when they are merely YOUR opinion. Since you cannot differentiate between the two whats the point?

The HOF is about SUSTAINED GREATNESS over a CAREER. Revis had what 4-5 good to great seasons over his career? The other years he either mailed it in or was physically unable to play on the level he established. Playing at a high level for half your career doesn't make you a HOF'er. It makes you a player worth mentioning but not elite. Here's a participation trophy for your effort. That should make you happy:

I believe only 2 Hof CB's have more first team all pro selections than Revis so please tell me about sustained greatness again.

[JetFaninMI]

1 hour ago, nyjunc said:

I believe only 2 Hof CB's have more first team all pro selections than Revis so please tell me about sustained greatness again.

Like I said whats the point? You obviously believe you're right. I disagree. The reasons have been plainly stated in other posts. The guys you are talking about played in different eras. Would they have had more ALL-PRO seasons if they played in this one? We don't know. Revis was a good to great player for the Jets. No one is taking that away from him but a HOF'er? Not in my opinion. Like I said previously I don't think he is a HOF'er but he probably gets in. I just feel the best of the best belong in the HOF and while Revis played well for a few seasons his career was not HOF caliber IMO. Your opinion is that he belongs. That is your opinion and not a fact. I believe what I believe and you do as well. The only fact here is that our opinions differ. Live with it.

[#27TheDominator]

15 hours ago, JetFaninMI said:

Yes I am LOLING you. The number of teams is highly significant. It means there were less roster spaces available so only the best players made those rosters. Seriously?

 

15 hours ago, JetFaninMI said:

Going back to this gem of a post. What exactly does this mean? You think the HOF is based on popularity? The HOF is for the best that EVER PLAYED THE GAME. That means only the ELITE or GREATEST players make it. Come on, you're better than this.

I am better than what?  Logic?  You don't make much sense.  Revis was, without a doubt, the best CB in football for years.  He had what is widely considered the top season for a CB ever.  I don't think I have heard many claim it was any worse than top 3. You don't think that THE BEST constitutes ELITE?  Can't help you there.  You think that the HOF requires SUSTAINED GREATNESS?  I ask you how that explains Gale Sayers, and your response is "I saw him?"  That does not help your credibility.  Revis was the best corner longer than Sayers was a top RB. You don't think being good or great for 4-5 years was enough, but Sayers had 52 yards in his 6th best season.

When you are talking about a guy who is literally the unquestioned best player at his position, what does this alleged watering down of the league and number of teams matter?  You don't think Revis would have made a roster in 1966? Give me a ******* break.  He was covering the #1 WR.  They would have all made the rosters in 1966 too. 

I get you think Revis' career wasn't enough, but the idea that there is some objective formula that keeps him out is beyond ridiculous.  If only he had been great (1st team all pro 4 times) or very good (pro bowl 7 times) for an extended time!

[Apache 51]

My man...

[Losmeister]

if i could move this very dead topic, i would...

 

 

[DoubleDown]

So much debate in this thread, but I think it's pretty clear.

100% chance he's getting in.

25% chance he gets in on the first ballot.

3 years of dominant, elite play. Another 3 years of great play. And he has a Superbowl too.

What he did in this era of pass happy, no contact football is incredible in all honesty. He set the standard of shutdown corner for years. He's on the same level as other greats such as Sanders and Bailey.

[Mogglez]

Look, I get feeling extremely salty over Revis winning a ring with New England and being a "me-first" player, but this revisionist history of his career is absolutely ridiculous.   

There's being salty, angry, and upset...and then there's acting like a guy who tells everyone that the girl he broke up with was never that great after she gets super hot and gets all that she wants out of life while you're all alone and miserable because you ruined your love life by dumping her. 

He's going into the Hall of Fame because on the field he was a phenomenal player.  No amount of anger towards him is going to change that.

[JetFaninMI]

21 hours ago, #27TheDominator said:

 

I am better than what?  Logic?  You don't make much sense.  Revis was, without a doubt, the best CB in football for years.  He had what is widely considered the top season for a CB ever.  I don't think I have heard many claim it was any worse than top 3. You don't think that THE BEST constitutes ELITE?  Can't help you there.  You think that the HOF requires SUSTAINED GREATNESS?  I ask you how that explains Gale Sayers, and your response is "I saw him?"  That does not help your credibility.  Revis was the best corner longer than Sayers was a top RB. You don't think being good or great for 4-5 years was enough, but Sayers had 52 yards in his 6th best season.

When you are talking about a guy who is literally the unquestioned best player at his position, what does this alleged watering down of the league and number of teams matter?  You don't think Revis would have made a roster in 1966? Give me a ******* break.  He was covering the #1 WR.  They would have all made the rosters in 1966 too. 

I get you think Revis' career wasn't enough, but the idea that there is some objective formula that keeps him out is beyond ridiculous.  If only he had been great (1st team all pro 4 times) or very good (pro bowl 7 times) for an extended time!

Oh where to begin? You argue that Sayers only had 4-5 years of great production. True. You also leave out that Sayers had an injury that EFFECTIVELY ENDED HIS CAREER. So using him as an example is not only illogical but also plainly short sighted. If you had seen Sayers play you would not only understand my point you know exactly what I am talking about.

A Record That Has Stood the Test of Time

12/12/2016

See All News

For all of the records that has survived throughout the rich history of the National Football League, Pro Football Hall of Fame fullback Ernie Nevers scored every one of the team’s points (six touchdowns and four extra point conversions) in a blowout 40-6 victory over the Chicago Bears.
 
However, 40 years ago to the date, Gold Jacket Gale Sayers tied Nevers’ single game touchdown record.
 
The rookie running back Sayers scored six touchdowns against the San Francisco 49ers at Chicago’s Wrigley Field. His historic six scores, four rushing, one receiving and one special teams return tied an NFL record held by Nevers in 1929 and Dub Jones of the Cleveland Browns in 1951.
 
Drafted in 1965 by the Chicago Bears, Sayers finished his rookie season with 2,272 combined rushing, receiving and kick-return yards and 22 touchdowns, a record for a rookie earning him the NFL Rookie of the Year for 1965. 

The NFL Season was 14 games long back then. No bye week either. That makes Sayers record and career all that more impressive. Also the NFL back then was made up of 14 teams. 14. Less than half of what it is today. So yeah there is a chance Revis would not have been on a roster. He probably would have been because he went to a well known school but less roster space  and fewer teams means less players. That would have been a factor. The fact that Sayers is even in the Hall after only the amount of years he played is a tribute to his greatness.

I never said there was any formula to keep Revis out. My argument is simply that back in Sayers playing days they played a shorter schedule, there were 14 teams in the League, and competition for those fewer roster spaces was fierce. Only the best made it. Would Revis had? Maybe yes and maybe no. You can't say for sure. There are what 32 teams in the NFL today? 18 more than in 1965. 1696 players in a 32 team league and thats not counting the 10 player practice squad for each team. There were only 45 players on an NFL roster back in 1965. 45. 630 players in the whole league. You saying that doesn't make a difference? Come on. Thats why I said you're better than this. Using a player who's career was cut short by injury in an era where there was less players in the league by a large margin than there is today is not only weak but just plain wrong.

[southparkcpa]

23 hours ago, JetFaninMI said:

Like I said whats the point? You obviously believe you're right. I disagree. The reasons have been plainly stated in other posts. The guys you are talking about played in different eras. Would they have had more ALL-PRO seasons if they played in this one? We don't know. Revis was a good to great player for the Jets. No one is taking that away from him but a HOF'er? Not in my opinion. Like I said previously I don't think he is a HOF'er but he probably gets in. I just feel the best of the best belong in the HOF and while Revis played well for a few seasons his career was not HOF caliber IMO. Your opinion is that he belongs. That is your opinion and not a fact. I believe what I believe and you do as well. The only fact here is that our opinions differ. Live with it.

I think time will work against you. I HATE Revis, but he will get inducted IMO.  I basically agree with almost all of your points. But he has a GREAT chance to get in. 

1st ballot?  I hope not, I hope he waits til the old age committee...  but I think he will get in. 

 

[Matt39]

09-11 were his peak seasons. He missed games in 2010 too and didn’t record a turnover either. His season in Tampa was as forgettable as Deion’s in Baltimore. 

The nickname and the marketing buzz over his 09 season carried his career a bit. The lack of turnovers for the alleged best ever at the position is certainly a knock. 

[nyjunc]

On ‎7‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 10:23 AM, JetFaninMI said:

Like I said whats the point? You obviously believe you're right. I disagree. The reasons have been plainly stated in other posts. The guys you are talking about played in different eras. Would they have had more ALL-PRO seasons if they played in this one? We don't know. Revis was a good to great player for the Jets. No one is taking that away from him but a HOF'er? Not in my opinion. Like I said previously I don't think he is a HOF'er but he probably gets in. I just feel the best of the best belong in the HOF and while Revis played well for a few seasons his career was not HOF caliber IMO. Your opinion is that he belongs. That is your opinion and not a fact. I believe what I believe and you do as well. The only fact here is that our opinions differ. Live with it.

I do believe I am right and the facts back me up. 

what does them playing in different eras have to do w/ anything? were all pro teams not available to make back then?  we judge players against their era, it's the only fair way to judge. 

The same people arguing against a 4 time 1st team all pro and best defensive player in the game for a couple of years are the same people that argue for a compiler like Eli manning who never made a single all pro team and was never one of the best QBs in the league.

I agree that the best of the best belong in the hall, I think they let way too many people in but Darrelle Revis is one of the best of the best.  No one has ever played at a higher level than Darrelle did at his peak.

I never have any problems w/ differing opinions, I actually love differing opinions b/c then we can debate which I love to do.  My problem comes from those that choose to just hurl insults at me rather than try to dismantle my arguments.

[nyjunc]

On ‎7‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 1:00 PM, Sperm Edwards said:

My recollection was that Nnamdi at one time was considered the better pure cover corner, but while he was very good a lot of it was smoke & mirrors because he was hardly thrown at (due to someone else always wide open in Oakland's secondary). Then he goes to Philadelphia in 2011 (after Tanny came in 2nd in the Nnamdi sweepstakes) and the very next year he's suddenly nothing when he's tested more opposite Asante Samuel.

The idea that Revis wasn't thrown at, especially during his best season (2009), is nonsense. He was thrown at over 100x (~7 targets per game). QBs just weren't very successful when they did (37% completion, 4.0 yds/pass attempt). And the list of WRs he was covering that year, with Ty Law coverage rules, made such all the more impossible. 

Still don't think he or any CB was worth $16m on a $120m salary cap - which was solid money for a pro bowl QB at the time - but never doubted his ability until he showed his obvious decline from an unsustainable bar height.

I think Nnamdi was more legend than reality.  Oakland stunk and opposing teams didn't need to throw as much.  he was exposed in Philly.

Good post, I think as fans we get upset w/ players holding out but we have to realize these players have a short window to maximize their earnings.  It never held him back on the field.  Late in his career he wasn't the Revis we remembered but the majority of his career he was the best corner in football and one of the greatest of all time. It's a shame we have so many fans that cannot get past the contract stuff, many of the same fans praise Brett Favre who destroyed a SB chance but they bash Revis who was the biggest reason we had multiple SB chances.

[greenwichjetfan]

16 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

many of the same fans praise Brett Favre who destroyed a SB chance

Please explain.

[#27TheDominator]

On 7/22/2018 at 8:57 AM, JetFaninMI said:

Oh where to begin? You argue that Sayers only had 4-5 years of great production. True. You also leave out that Sayers had an injury that EFFECTIVELY ENDED HIS CAREER. So using him as an example is not only illogical but also plainly short sighted. If you had seen Sayers play you would not only understand my point you know exactly what I am talking about.

A Record That Has Stood the Test of Time

12/12/2016

See All News

For all of the records that has survived throughout the rich history of the National Football League, Pro Football Hall of Fame fullback Ernie Nevers scored every one of the team’s points (six touchdowns and four extra point conversions) in a blowout 40-6 victory over the Chicago Bears.
 
However, 40 years ago to the date, Gold Jacket Gale Sayers tied Nevers’ single game touchdown record.
 
The rookie running back Sayers scored six touchdowns against the San Francisco 49ers at Chicago’s Wrigley Field. His historic six scores, four rushing, one receiving and one special teams return tied an NFL record held by Nevers in 1929 and Dub Jones of the Cleveland Browns in 1951.
 
Drafted in 1965 by the Chicago Bears, Sayers finished his rookie season with 2,272 combined rushing, receiving and kick-return yards and 22 touchdowns, a record for a rookie earning him the NFL Rookie of the Year for 1965. 

The NFL Season was 14 games long back then. No bye week either. That makes Sayers record and career all that more impressive. Also the NFL back then was made up of 14 teams. 14. Less than half of what it is today. So yeah there is a chance Revis would not have been on a roster. He probably would have been because he went to a well known school but less roster space  and fewer teams means less players. That would have been a factor. The fact that Sayers is even in the Hall after only the amount of years he played is a tribute to his greatness.

I never said there was any formula to keep Revis out. My argument is simply that back in Sayers playing days they played a shorter schedule, there were 14 teams in the League, and competition for those fewer roster spaces was fierce. Only the best made it. Would Revis had? Maybe yes and maybe no. You can't say for sure. There are what 32 teams in the NFL today? 18 more than in 1965. 1696 players in a 32 team league and thats not counting the 10 player practice squad for each team. There were only 45 players on an NFL roster back in 1965. 45. 630 players in the whole league. You saying that doesn't make a difference? Come on. Thats why I said you're better than this. Using a player who's career was cut short by injury in an era where there was less players in the league by a large margin than there is today is not only weak but just plain wrong.

This is a lot of sh*t that makes my point.  

4-5 years of greatness is enough for Sayers, but you claimed that Revis could not get in because 4-5 years is not enough.  You made my point, you agreed with it, yet you seem very argumentative.  I would argue that Revis' 2009 season was as good as anything Sayers, did, but that is not the point.  The point is that there are cases where 4-5 years is enough.  

Also, Revis had an injury that derailed his career too.  What the **** does the practice squad have to do with this?  When did Revis cover guys from the practice squad?  Practice?  There are more players, they are bigger and faster, it is harder to be the best today.  To have a near perfect season is more difficult.  If we were arguing about playoff appearances or statistics you would have a point about more teams, rosters, watered down league, but not when we are talking about a shutdown CB.  What did Revis do that was watered down by the expanded roster?  Tell me. 

[JetFaninMI]

9 hours ago, nyjunc said:

I do believe I am right and the facts back me up. 

what does them playing in different eras have to do w/ anything? were all pro teams not available to make back then?  we judge players against their era, it's the only fair way to judge. 

The same people arguing against a 4 time 1st team all pro and best defensive player in the game for a couple of years are the same people that argue for a compiler like Eli manning who never made a single all pro team and was never one of the best QBs in the league.

I agree that the best of the best belong in the hall, I think they let way too many people in but Darrelle Revis is one of the best of the best.  No one has ever played at a higher level than Darrelle did at his peak.

I never have any problems w/ differing opinions, I actually love differing opinions b/c then we can debate which I love to do.  My problem comes from those that choose to just hurl insults at me rather than try to dismantle my arguments.

Dude playing in different eras has a lot to do with it. Less teams. Less roster spots. Deeper talent pool. If you can't acknowledge that then you have already lost the argument.

[Losmeister]

eric ******* weddle has as many career INT, ffs

 

herm edwards has more career INTS!

 

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/def_int_career.htm

over 200 nfl players have more INT

[JetFaninMI]

6 hours ago, #27TheDominator said:

This is a lot of sh*t that makes my point.  

4-5 years of greatness is enough for Sayers, but you claimed that Revis could not get in because 4-5 years is not enough.  You made my point, you agreed with it, yet you seem very argumentative.  I would argue that Revis' 2009 season was as good as anything Sayers, did, but that is not the point.  The point is that there are cases where 4-5 years is enough.  

Also, Revis had an injury that derailed his career too.  What the **** does the practice squad have to do with this?  When did Revis cover guys from the practice squad?  Practice?  There are more players, they are bigger and faster, it is harder to be the best today.  To have a near perfect season is more difficult.  If we were arguing about playoff appearances or statistics you would have a point about more teams, rosters, watered down league, but not when we are talking about a shutdown CB.  What did Revis do that was watered down by the expanded roster?  Tell me. 

Dude Sayers played 4-5 seasons and STILL MADE THE HOF. That was his whole career! They thought enough of him to put him in based on those 4-5 years. He did that playing against a higher level of competition based on the fact that there was less teams and LESS SPOTS AVAILABLE ON THOSE TEAMS. WTF does playoff appearances or stats have to do with the fact that less roster spots and less teams mean better talent? 630 players as compared to 1696 and you say that doesn't matter? LOL. You have to be kidding me.

[#27TheDominator]

8 minutes ago, JetFaninMI said:

Dude Sayers played 4-5 seasons and STILL MADE THE HOF. That was his whole career! They thought enough of him to put him in based on those 4-5 years. He did that playing against a higher level of competition based on the fact that there was less teams and LESS SPOTS AVAILABLE ON THOSE TEAMS. WTF does playoff appearances or stats have to do with the fact that less roster spots and less teams mean better talent? 630 players as compared to 1696 and you say that doesn't matter? LOL. You have to be kidding me.

You seem to think being the best out of 630 is better than being the best of 1696.  Pardon me if I think that is a load of sh*t. 

Gale Sayers made the HOF on 5 seasons and there is no reason why Revis cannot make it if voters feel is 4-5 seasons were that strong.  You are the one ranting about sustained excellence.  Not me. 

[Losmeister]

gale sayers/darrelle revis. 

one of the most electrfying runners evert. and darelle, passes defensed ******* mevis.

ffs, m8s. your insane. 

 

[Losmeister]

bobble head kelso had more INTS in one less year.

[JetFaninMI]

4 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

You seem to think being the best out of 630 is better than being the best of 1696.  Pardon me if I think that is a load of sh*t. 

Gale Sayers made the HOF on 5 seasons and there is no reason why Revis cannot make it if voters feel is 4-5 seasons were that strong.  You are the one ranting about sustained excellence.  Not me. 

Dude my point is that Revis played against lesser talent than Sayers who is an undisputed ALL-TIME great. Revis is not and never will be. You need to understand the level of talent Sayers played against. The percentage of HOF'ers Sayers played against compared to Revis is laughable. You refuse to acknowledge that and that is the major flaw in your argument. Gale Sayers compared to Revis.....LMAO.

[Losmeister]

 

you show your ignorance of the game.