49ers interested in trading for Revis (link provided)

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by BillRing2:
So nobody can see the 49ers trading with the Raiders for their 3rd overall pick and choosing the DT Sharrif Floyd out of Florida or Sheldon Richardson out of Missouri that would shore up the DL for the 31st and 34th? Raiders need picks and Aldon Smith needs help.

That's not nearly enough for that trade up to work. I don't see the point in trading up in a draft that is lacking at the top but is stuffed at the middle. 49ers are best off waiting and seeing who unexpectedly falls, because someone will, at that point, take calls from other teams, see who is desperate to trade off, extract as much as you can from them or simply stay put and take BPA at an area of need.

I understand. Maybe throw in a few more picks (BAALKE WONT DO THIS) but the 49ers do have 14 draft picks this year. Im just having fun.

Revis is no Deion and he's coming off the ACL injury. Also, this isn't basketball where you trade for a superstar. In football, you build through the draft. I'd rather see us trade up for a young talent than trade picks for a CB with an ACL injury.

And IMO, we don't necessarily need help at CB. At least not to the point of trading for Revis. I think we were getting burned because JSmith was injured, which affected the pass rush, and our defensive coaches didn't rush the passer in general. You can't just send 4 guys, let the QB sit back and pick apart the defense. That's what happened vs ATL and BAL.

The few times we sent a blitz against Flacco, we had success. Work on different blitz packages or draft a pass rushing DL and it takes the pressure off the CB in 1on1 coverage.

I'd take him as a rental, but not sure if Revis is worth a new longterm contract.

I don't really want Revis with his attitude and price tag, but if the compensation is reasonable I could get behind signing the top CB in the league for a "rental," or leasing with the option to buy.

It looks like Goldson is going to test FA and if he gets a big offer, I wouldn't be surprised, or opposed, to see a short team deal for Ed Reed.

Originally posted by mug0mug:
I don't really want Revis with his attitude and price tag, but if the compensation is reasonable I could get behind signing the top CB in the league for a "rental," or leasing with the option to buy.

It looks like Goldson is going to test FA and if he gets a big offer, I wouldn't be surprised, or opposed, to see a short team deal for Ed Reed.

+1 I'll pass on revis goldson is more important, if not Ed would be a nice fill or even woodson. Draft a saftey and a cb dline players and so on we have the picks, I'd rather even trade up to take a cb who be younger and not coming off a injury.

Again too many issues get mixed up in this discussion and it gets totally confused. Let me repeat once again.

If (and it's a big "If") we get Revis it won't' be through free agency. It's a trade! So all the stuff about "overpaying" and "not taking care of our own guys" is meaningless, unless we're talking about overpaying with picks. I don't think the 49ers could (or should) give him a long term contract, but a one year rental makes great sense if this pick price is right.

OK let's think cap hits. Revis' cap number for next year is basically equivalent (in fact smaller) to franchising Goldson. We probably won't tag Goldson this year, but we were happy enough to have done so last year. Don't think of it as a "rental" if you don't like, think of it as slapping the tag on Revis rather than Goldson. You pay 6-7 mil and you get a DB for one year. Would you rather have Revis instead of Goldson for the same money? I would. Even if you don't think it's worth it (and there are fair arguments about this,particularly concerning the injury), it really has nothing to do with Kaep's, Aldon's or Crabs' contract extensions, which we're all keen on. It's the same money as Goldson.

Now, how about giving up picks? I see two arguments against it here. One is a rather nebulous mantra of "you don't build through FA but through the draft". First of all, this isn't FA (let's keep repeating that). Then, we were happy enough to bring in Justin, Whitner, Rogers and Mario through actual, honest to god, FA. Justin has been great. Whitner & Rogers helped a lot, particularly in 2011. Mario got injured, but he looked the part when he was healthy. We traded for Ginn, and notwithstanding all his issues, he did help us in the return game these last two years. Sure, we have had our FA duds in the past. Who hasn't But I don't think that we've been particularly exceptional in the league for avoiding FA. We're not as silly as Oakland or Washington (or KC ) when we go about it, but neither are we some youth movement purists. Bringing players from the outside can be great if you don't break the bank; a Revis trade (repeat with me: It's not free agency) has to make sense cap and pick wise.

So, how much is too much when it comes to picks? We will have 15 of them, of which 5 are between #30 and 100 (I'm not sure about compensatory ones, but I doubt we'll get one in the bottom of the third. If we do, then it's 6 in that range). Forget "rounds", think overall order. 5 players between 30 and 100, and 10 below that. Of course we're likely to trade up in some rounds, or trade for future picks, but if you don't think this team has ammunition for a trade I don't know what you're thinking.

We started yesterday with #31, #61, #74 and #93. If I came to you and told you: "I'll take Smith off your hands, flip you #31 for #34 (a "trade down" if you will), and also take #61. In return I'll give you Revis. I'll also give you a mid rounder in 2014 if Smith signs long term/plays certain games etc etc, and you give me a mid rounder in 2014 if Revis signs long term for you/comes back from injury well etc etc". Do you do the trade?


I'm not saying any of this will happen. What I'm trying to say is that this trade above translates in the language of so many people here for "Giving up our first and second plus a conditional 2014 mid rounder for Revis". If you write it like that, people will flip and moan about "overpaying". If you express it as I did (Revis for Smith, #61 plus 3 spots trade down in the 30s) you'd probably say we fleeced them.

Originally posted by paulk205:
Again too many issues get mixed up in this discussion and it gets totally confused. Let me repeat once again.

If (and it's a big "If") we get Revis it won't' be through free agency. It's a trade! So all the stuff about "overpaying" and "not taking care of our own guys" is meaningless, unless we're talking about overpaying with picks. I don't think the 49ers could (or should) give him a long term contract, but a one year rental makes great sense if this pick price is right.

OK let's think cap hits. Revis' cap number for next year is basically equivalent (in fact smaller) to franchising Goldson. We probably won't tag Goldson this year, but we were happy enough to have done so last year. Don't think of it as a "rental" if you don't like, think of it as slapping the tag on Revis rather than Goldson. You pay 6-7 mil and you get a DB for one year. Would you rather have Revis instead of Goldson for the same money? I would. Even if you don't think it's worth it (and there are fair arguments about this,particularly concerning the injury), it really has nothing to do with Kaep's, Aldon's or Crabs' contract extensions, which we're all keen on. It's the same money as Goldson.

Now, how about giving up picks? I see two arguments against it here. One is a rather nebulous mantra of "you don't build through FA but through the draft". First of all, this isn't FA (let's keep repeating that). Then, we were happy enough to bring in Justin, Whitner, Rogers and Mario through actual, honest to god, FA. Justin has been great. Whitner & Rogers helped a lot, particularly in 2011. Mario got injured, but he looked the part when he was healthy. We traded for Ginn, and notwithstanding all his issues, he did help us in the return game these last two years. Sure, we have had our FA duds in the past. Who hasn't But I don't think that we've been particularly exceptional in the league for avoiding FA. We're not as silly as Oakland or Washington (or KC ) when we go about it, but neither are we some youth movement purists. Bringing players from the outside can be great if you don't break the bank; a Revis trade (repeat with me: It's not free agency) has to make sense cap and pick wise.

So, how much is too much when it comes to picks? We will have 15 of them, of which 5 are between #30 and 100 (I'm not sure about compensatory ones, but I doubt we'll get one in the bottom of the third. If we do, then it's 6 in that range). Forget "rounds", think overall order. 5 players between 30 and 100, and 10 below that. Of course we're likely to trade up in some rounds, or trade for future picks, but if you don't think this team has ammunition for a trade I don't know what you're thinking.

We started yesterday with #31, #61, #74 and #93. If I came to you and told you: "I'll take Smith off your hands, flip you #31 for #34 (a "trade down" if you will), and also take #61. In return I'll give you Revis. I'll also give you a mid rounder in 2014 if Smith signs long term/plays certain games etc etc, and you give me a mid rounder in 2014 if Revis signs long term for you/comes back from injury well etc etc". Do you do the trade?


I'm not saying any of this will happen. What I'm trying to say is that this trade above translates in the language of so many people here for "Giving up our first and second plus a conditional 2014 mid rounder for Revis". If you write it like that, people will flip and moan about "overpaying". If you express it as I did (Revis for Smith, #61 plus 3 spots trade down in the 30s) you'd probably say we fleeced them.

Agreed. The answer on Revis is, "it depends." As a football player there is no question, he's someone who contributes in a big way. So big, you could argue it makes Goldson expendable.

Originally posted by DonnieDarko:
people who want revis are thinking backwards IMO

we need to keep maintaining our front 7. justin is getting older and we could improve at NT. we lacked that pass rush late in the year because of justin's injury and our secondary paid the price.

True - I'm in the draft a DLinemen crrowd. But another way to look at it is, you don't just ignore a talent like Revis. This team is a couple pieces away, and not many roster spots are open for a rookie to come in and contribute immediately.

Revis locking down one side of the field alone (if healthy obvisously) Tightens up the coverage across the rest of the field as well.

Nothings a guarantee, but at the end of the day, would you trade a couple picks for a Superbowl?

I get that given a choice you don't want a player with a blown knee .....

but most players just don't seem to be effected by it like they use too

I don't watch a ton of jets games ...am I wrong to associated revis' game with Dion Sanders?

Revis for one year shouldn't cost that much. Third round pick and one of our 4th rounders. If its more let the Jets get nothing for him and still suck this year

Adam Schefter ‏@AdamSchefter ESPN's Chris Mortensen said a source told him the 49ers are not inclined to pursue Darrelle Revis at this time. So there's that.

Originally posted by valrod33:
Adam Schefter ‏@AdamSchefter ESPN's Chris Mortensen said a source told him the 49ers are not inclined to pursue Darrelle Revis at this time. So there's that.

Niners are smart enough to down play what their REAL intentions are as to not start a bidding war for Revis.

Third round pick means #93 and one of our fourth rounders is ridiculously down in the 100s. If this happened there would be a riot in NJ. The Jets have a new GM who would prefer not to be burned in effigy.

The Jets have little to no leverage in a trade for Revis. #1 Revis is rehabbing a ACL injury,#2 he is in the final year of his deal,#3 he has a clause in his contract that he can't be franchised, and #4 the Jets don't want to extend him after this year. The Jets didn't even talk to his agent at the combine about a new deal. The Jets don't have a leg to stand on. Who's going to offer a high draft pick for a guy with a repaired knee,you can't franchise after the season and wants elite QB type money on a new deal. Anyone who gives up a high draft pick for Revis will watch him after the season go to the highest bidder if he comes back healthy. Basically a team would give up a 1st round or 2nd round pick or both for a 1 year rental. He's going on the market at the end of next year to start a bidding war. Revis has showed he's all about the money. Held out for a new deal and then after he received it wanted to hold out again to get a new contract.

Originally posted by SanFranFanfrmVa:

The Jets have little to no leverage in a trade for Revis. #1 Revis is rehabbing a ACL injury,#2 he is in the final year of his deal,#3 he has a clause in his contract that he can't be franchised, and #4 the Jets don't want to extend him after this year. The Jets didn't even talk to his agent at the combine about a new deal. The Jets don't have a leg to stand on. Who's going to offer a high draft pick for a guy with a repaired knee,you can't franchise after the season and wants elite QB type money on a new deal. Anyone who gives up a high draft pick for Revis will watch him after the season go to the highest bidder if he comes back healthy.

This. I meant our early 3rd round pick... but really we should offer them the late third, a fifth and a seventh. 3 picks for a guy you would otherwise get nothing for when your team won't compete anyways is good. Plus that type of a package is better than pick 61.