Wikipedia

Talk:Darrelle Revis

Latest comment: 8 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Untitled

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Revis has made the all-pro team for 2010 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6054502 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportfan9 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

WikiProject class rating

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Colston

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I've reverted the man-on-man stats for Marques Colston back to no completions for no yardage. The New Orleans Times-Picayune [1], among others like Rotoworld, reported that Revis allowed no completions the entire game, against Colston or other receivers; all of Colston's catches came against the Jets' regular nickelback and dimeback. — east718 | talk | 12:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Also see [2], which only has stats up to week 12, but is only for WRs when covered by Revis man-on-man. I've updated the article with those stats. — east718 | talk | 13:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

2009

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I'm as big a Jets fan as any, but my god, that section on the 2009 season is way too long. It reeks of WP:RECENTISM. Anyone agree or disagree, before I tag it? Key quote from the policy: "Long passages in an athlete's or an actor's biography might be devoted to detailed coverage of a recent controversy." --Muboshgu (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

No response... I'm tagging it. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Revis only had 6 interceptions in 2009, not 7. http://www.newyorkjets.com/team/roster/Darrelle-Revis/8fa5f5d3-1063-4644-9e4f-e2e2e9695d8b — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.91.155 (talk) 14:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Terms of Contract 2010

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The details of the contract have not yet been officially announced by the Jets. Until they do, the number of years and dollars should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.100.44.190 (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Done, thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Looks like it was put back in there. The link provided states that the Jets did not announce the financial terms of the deal, but the Daily News is somehow able to provide it. Should we consider this credible or remove since there is no official announcement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.100.44.190 (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Score?

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

It says 'In the PIAA Class AA State Championship football game, he led Aliquippa to a come-from-behind 32-27 win over Northern Lehigh by scoring 5 touchdowns including 3 rushing touchdowns, a punt return, and the return of a blocked Northern Lehigh field goal attempt. He also completed a 39 yard pass, had a reception, and an interception in the game.[3]'

Are you telling me that they only made 2 extra points from 5 touchdowns? 5 * 6pts = 30 pts, the total is 32. I'm a bit fishy on that score as that would mean they missed 3 extra points. Perhaps that should be checked —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.138.199.2 (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Is it really that hard to believe a high school kicker went 2 for 5 on XP's? --Muboshgu (talk) 02:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Nevertheless, I have checked multiple sources and 32–27 was indeed the score. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Here's your substantiation, a contemporary news article from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_168874.html 75.75.161.181 (talk) 07:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

STOP TAKING RANDY MOSS OUT OF THE ROOKIE YEAR SECTION

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I found several videos of Randy blowing by Revis but I have yet to find a reliable written account of the game. Revis got beat by Moss for a TD. Revis had primary responsibility and the safeties were supposed to help him over the top if Moss beat him. All three got burned PRIMARILY Revis. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfAEoz75a2k Revis was the first man beaten off the line and he moved in to make the stop on the run fake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.209.2 (talk) 00:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

First, your edit is not encyclopedic per the manual of style. Second, a YouTube video is not a reliable source. Third, one single play where Revis "got burned" isn't a notable event. Your insistence on adding it without providing any rationale suggests to me that you simply want to add something negative here, which violates the principle of neutrality. Finally, typing in all caps doesn't help you make a point. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry that I tried to make my point more noticeable by typing in all caps. But I disagree with you on two things. One I am merely pointing out that this article is inaccurate and I am not trying to insist anything negative about Revis. I am simply stating the truth which is that he gave up one more touchdown then the article states. It is not a "notable event" but I would think that any Wikipedia writer would insist that the articles are as accurate as possible. As for your notion about the source, I will search for a more "reliable" one but I feel since the video is a primary source in which a viewer can observe Moss beating Revis for a touchdown rather than a secondary source of a sportswriter recounting the event, it should be sufficient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.209.2 (talk) 05:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Looking at the video, I can't even tell which jersey numbers are which and I have yet to find any other videos with a higher quality. That said, I did find an ESPN article which states Moss had a quick release off of Revis but he proceeded to beat the triple coverage comprised of David Barrett, Jonathan Vilma and Erik Coleman. With this information, we return to the video and see this unfold however Revis does curl back with another Patriots receiver which seemingly indicates he was handing it off to the triple coverage that was clearly trying to prevent the grab by Moss. I suppose you could argue he did get past Revis but the fact that Revis curled with the aforementioned receiver leads me to believe the play was designed to work the way it did. In any event, the touchdown grab is the trio's fault–when utilizing triple coverage, it is usually customary to, if nothing else, break up the play. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 11:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

That is a very good point I guess the way the play unfolded it appeared that Revis looked to break off coverage to stop the run when the play action fake was done. I will concede that the play is open to interpretation in terms of who is at fault. However I feel the same is true on any play as the writers really never know what each players assignment on a given play is for sure. In light of this I believe that it might be in the best interest of this article and other similar articles to think about removing this statistic as it is impossible to be sure of who has blown their assignment. As any football player would know if a defensive player is beat on a play there is usually a contingency plan in which another player shifts over to provide coverage. And while a catch made can be said to be the shifted players fault, in reality it might be someone else who has failed. In this article there is the possibility that Revis was in fact not responsible for some of the plays listed.

If the majority of people seem to agree I would move to remove this statistic as it could can be misleading. I will not make the edit as I feel it should be done by an unbiased observer who has carefully considered the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.209.2 (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Signing confirmed

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Now that the trade to Tampa and the contract he signed are confirmed, will semi-protection be lifted early? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.251.152 (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Other News

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 48 external links on Darrelle Revis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Darrelle_Revis&oldid=1257794185"