The following article is written by Joe Caporoso and Chris Gross
The primary purpose of this website is to provide coverage of the New York Jets that avoids the headline-chasing garbage that has diminished the quality of work done by credentialed writers surrounding the team. A secondary purpose is to call BS when we see poor excuses for journalism or when there is a clear media strategy in place motivating articles.
Darrelle Revis’ most recent contract standoff with the Jets has provided a flood of these articles, with TEAM REVIS (Neil Schwartz, Jon Feinsod, John Geiger and company) clearly being the sourcing on pieces like this by Jason Cole and Manish Mehta.
“Source familiar with situation” = Revis’ agents and people pushing to get him out of New York ASAP because they know Woody Johnson isn’t going to make Revis the highest paid defensive player in football.
The above articles are filled with quotes like – “If Revis isn’t traded by Wednesday, John Idzik is an idiot“…”it is in the best interest for the Jets to get this done sooner rather than later” – Why?
As this article spells out, there is no rush. It is in the best interest of the Jets to find the deal or strategy that makes the most sense for their organization regardless of the time frame. The urgency from these quotes is meant to force public pressure on the Jets to get Revis into a different organization more amenable to meeting his long term contract demands.
You would swear at times TEAM REVIS is writing the articles themselves for people like Cole and Mehta or running their Twitter handles.
Multiple other sources (more credible ones like Chris Mortensen of ESPN) have confirmed Atlanta never had any interest in Revis and San Francisco’s interest is overstated. Detroit? Was that just picking a cornerback needy team and throwing it against the wall? And of course Miami would love to get him, he is Darrelle ‘freakin Revis, every team would “love to get him” – What is the news there?
The media blitz by TEAM REVIS should be recognized by observers of the situation and articles basically written as press releases by them shouldn’t be taken as realistic portrayals of what is going on. For the most part, the Jets have been refreshingly quiet on this issue and are just starting to push back in the media.
Jason Cole caught our attention by being so firmly in the TEAM REVIS corner on this issue, Manish Mehta’s actions continue an ugly year plus of offensively poorly sourced, agenda-based “journalism”. But hey, at least it appears now Mehta is reading our site for his information. We are assuming his “sources” for his story on the Jets interest in Kevin Kolb in his March 14th article, is our article from March 4th saying the same thing. Feel free to use our names next time, Manish, it will be a nice change of pace to see a source with a name in a Daily News article.
Anyway, last night we had an entertaining interaction further demonstrating Cole’s bias on the Revis situation. Turn On The Jets referred an article by Chris over to Mehta, Schwartz, Feinsod, Florio, and Cole.
The article was an observation of the Revis trade talks and contract situation. One of the points made here referenced the two Revis holdouts that have taken place within his short six year career as a primary reason as to why the New England Patriots, a team rumored to be a potential landing spot for Revis, would never trade for the All-Pro cornerback.
To our great surprise (sarcasm intended), Cole disagreed with this notion. In fact, he even went on to claim a factual error, arguing Revis had held out just once in his career, rather than twice, a notion normally universally agreed upon by anyone with any knowledge of the situation.
This struck us as odd. He couldn’t have been referencing the HBO documented 2010 hold out. No one would dare argue that notion considering how publicized it was. So was he referring to his 2007 rookie hold out as the “non-holdout”? Some of our followers were very curious to know, as well, as they flooded Cole’s mentions asking for an explanation. Lucky for everyone involved, Cole was kind enough to elaborate on that, revealing that he was, in fact, referring to 2007 as the non-holdout.
As you can see by the tweet above, Cole’s argument is that since Revis did not have a contract prior to his rookie season in 2007, it was not a hold out, but simply a “negotiation,” despite reports of this exact instance deeming it a holdout here, here, here, here, here, here, and…okay, you get the point. It is well known and well documented that Darrelle Revis has staged two holdouts over the past six years. Yet, Cole was adamant in his claim that 2007 wasn’t a hold out. After telling us we didn’t know what they were arguing over, I kindly deferred Cole’s argument as pictured below.
Yet Cole would not give. Instead, he goes on to claim that the Jets were the side holding out. Yes. Cole claims that the team would not allow Revis to sign the contract because they weren’t comfortable with the terms of it. You know, the terms that they drafted. So, rather than get their first round pick into training camp on time, the Jets were holding him out and wouldn’t allow him to join the team. This was a first.
Despite my article, the one that began this whole debate, clearly stating “Whether you blame the player, his agents, or the organization is irrelevant to this argument,” Cole begins to get defensive and suggests we do our homework before blaming Revis.
We were baffled by this. Apparently, so too was Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk who disputed Cole’s claim. Cole counters Florio by telling him that Revis was not holding out for more money, but rather the Jets wanted a 6th year on the contract. He then takes a slight dig at Florio, curiously going on the defensive again, by claiming that Mike does not remember the details of the situation.
Florio then counters by offering an apology to Cole, who he deems the “wise and knowledgeable keeper (of) the NFL truths.” Cole, seemingly getting upset that nearly everyone who has a twitter is disputing his claim, goes on to tell Florio that he does “the same all the time.” We are not exactly sure what Cole is referring to here, so we will leave that untouched.
Florio, ending the brief debate with Cole, suggests that the Yahoo columnist is, in fact, twisting details to avoid addressing what the argument is about.
Cole, seemingly ready to stick to his guns in arguing that a player without a contract can not be deemed as a player holding out, then gets a question from Twitter user PatriotsXLVIII. He refers Cole to a piece he wrote on the holdout of Michael Crabtree prior to signing to his rookie deal back in 2009, which can be found here. For someone arguing Cole’s stance, the headline with his name and picture in the by line directly next to it, would certainly contradict that. Seriously, just go back and read his entire argument, then read nothing but the headline of that article without trying to laugh.
Cole agrees that PatriotsXLVIII has made a fair point, as displayed in the tweet below.
But Cole won’t surrender just yet. He claims he was wrong back then, and that the situation with Revis and the Jets was different, because the Jets were persistent in wanting a 6th year. No one is disputing the details. But a hold out is a hold out.
Before we could ask anything else, Cole suddenly concedes and let’s us know he is heading to bed.
Unfortunately, Cole took cover before having to explain why he is contradicting points he has made in the past. Here is an article written by Cole in September of 2010, nearly an exact year after his Crabtree piece, in which he does, in fact, report that Darrelle Revis held out prior to his rookie year in 2007.
So, let’s get this straight. According to Cole, it is a hold out in 2009 for Michael Crabtree when he doesn’t sign his proposed rookie contract. In 2010, Revis’s refusal to sign his rookie contract in 2007 was deemed, by Cole, to be a hold out, yet in 2013, it is not a hold out anymore?
Cole reported on the 2009 holdout of Michael Crabtree prior to him ever having a contract. He reported on the 2010 holdout of Darrelle Revis, while referencing his 2007 rookie hold out, the one where he didn’t have a contract, deeming 2010 as his second hold out when he wrote…
“Whats strange is that the Jets should have anticipated that. The Jets knew agents Neil Schwartz and Jonathan Feinsod well enough to understand that this wasn’t going to be easy if they didn’t take a strong approach. It wasn’t the first time considering Revis held out as a rookie in 2007.“
We know TEAM REVIS doesn’t like us calling out their media strategy, but unlike John Geiger says this isn’t our opinion, it is reality -