Torry Holt's career possibly over

[Anthony]

Does it look like im kidding?

I can't see "retarded" through a screen (unless you post your picture), but I did read your retarded statement and here I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.

:cookiemonster1:

 

[Senser81]

I don't know how Reed's resume is "much stronger" than Holt's.

Reed played for 16 years, and the second half of his career bled into the passer friendly era. It's not like he played in 1970. Holt played for 11 years. So hard to compare career totals.

Reed had four 1,000 yard seasons in 16 years. Holt had six consecutive years over 1,300 yards, multiple 1,600 yard seasons, and only dipped under 1,000 twice (rookie year & final year as a backup). Reed has only three 80+ catch seasons, while Holt only caught less than 80 balls three times. And Reed was the clear cut #1 WR for the majority of his career, while Holt was splitting balls with another potential HOF WR, and the greates pass catching RB of all time.

I don't think you can make the argument that Reed was ever the best WR during his era (even disqualifying Rice), but you can make that argument for Holt.

Reed played double the postseason games as Holt, so the better postseason numbers should be a given.

I'm not disagreeing with what you say, but those items aren't really a great case for Holt, either. Its more like Holt benefited from circumstance. He played in the passer-friendly era, he played less years than Reed, Reed was the #1 WR on his while Holt wasn't (?), Reed doubled Holt's postseason numbers because he played in more postseason games (?).

The big thing I do disagree with people about is this notion that you can make an argument for Holt being the best WR of his era. No, you can't. Holt made All-Pro ONCE in his entire career...how can that even possibly translate to being the best WR of his era? Even in his All-Pro year of 2003, when Holt set career highs of catches, yards, and TDs all in a single season, Holt's numbers were STILL worse than Randy Moss's in 2003. Do you honestly think that Torry Holt was better than Randy Moss, Marvin Harrison, et al?

 

[Blade]

No way. Tim Brown was stuck with some of the worst QBs of his era, and he still put up big numbers. He didn't have great speed, but he was a great all-around player. He was a very good return man and an excellent blocker. I think Tim Brown would have been good on any team in the NFL, whereas Holt was greatly aided by playing in a pass-heavy offense surrounded by great players.

I think the passing attack benefitted greatly from Torry Holt actually. But thanks for mentioning Tim Brown.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

I believe Holt has the most receptions and yards in the '00 decade. Some of that has to do with a career that started in 99 and ended in 09, but it still says something in terms of "the best of his era" argument. Harriosn, TO, Bruce, etc played the entire decade as well. I don't know if he was, I'm just saying you can make the argument and not look foolish.

 

[Senser81]

I believe Holt has the most receptions and yards in the '00 decade. Some of that has to do with a career that started in 99 and ended in 09, but it still says something in terms of "the best of his era" argument. Harriosn, TO, Bruce, etc played the entire decade as well. I don't know if he was, I'm just saying you can make the argument and not look foolish.

You can make the argument, but I don't think you can really make it with conviction. I'm not even looking at the stats/accolades.

And I have heard worse arguments, such as Football Outsiders proclaiming Reggie Rucker to be the 33rd best WR in NFL history.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Is that site still around? Is ram29jackson a mod? I haven't checked them out in years.

 

[Senser81]

Is that site still around? Is ram29jackson a mod? I haven't checked them out in years.

Here were their typically dreadful predictions for last season...with their SB being Chargers over Bears.

NFC South 2009 Proj (Actual):
1. Panthers (3)
2. Saints (1)
3. Bucs (4)
4. Falcons (2)

NFC West 2009 Proj (Actual):
1. Seahawks (3rd)
2. Rams (4th)
3. 49ers (2nd)
4. Cardinals (1st)

NFC North 2009 Proj (Actual):
1. Bears (3rd)
2. Vikings (1st)
3. Packers (2nd)
4. Lions (4th)

NFC East 2009 Proj (Actual):
1. Giants (3rd)
2. Eagles (2nd)
3. Cowboys (1st)
4. Redskins (4th)

AFC South 2009 Proj (Actual):
1. Colts (1st)
2. Jaguars (4th)
3. Titans (3rd)
4. Texans (2nd)

AFC West 2009 Proj (Actual):
1. Chargers (1st)
2. Chiefs (4th)
3. Raiders (3rd)
4. Broncos (2nd)

AFC North 2009 Proj (Actual):
1. Steelers (3rd)
2. Ravens (2nd)
3. Bengals (1st)
4. Browns (4th)

AFC East 2009 Proj (Actual):
1. Patriots (1st)
2. Dolphins (3rd)
3. Jets (2nd)
4. Bills (4th)

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

DVOA doesn't lie.

 

[Senser81]

DVOA doesn't lie.

What is strange is how even if the DVOA is saying something, if it doesn't agree with what Football Outsiders thinks, then its explained away as an "outlier" or an aberration.

I really liked the predictions of the Rams finishing 2nd, the Bears finishing 1st, the Bucs doing better than Atlanta, the Chiefs finishing 2nd, and the Cards finishing last. NONE of those picks made any sense.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Doesnt make any less sense than basing the best WR's of all time list largely on who caught the highest percentage of balls in relation to the other WR's on their respective teams.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

By the way, welcome to the yearly MM/VSN "Let's bash Football Outsiders" thread. You never know when it will pop up, but it always does. Tremedous.

 

[NAHSTE]

Wait, why do I have to choose between Tim Brown and Torry Holt? I think they're both great WRs and HOFers.

 

[Senser81]

Wait, why do I have to choose between Tim Brown and Torry Holt? I think they're both great WRs and HOFers.

Because if you don't choose one, then both of them will die.

 

[Diivox]

Holt was greatly aided by playing in a pass-heavy offense surrounded by great players.

I think this statement actually helps the Holt-to-HOF argument. He was the absolute best and put up amazing numbers in a pass heavy offense loaded with talent. in other words. there were always 3 recievers and a running back around him that would have also done amazing things with the ball, and yet he excelled in it. The argument could also be made that he was the element that truly allowed it to even be a pass heavy offense in the first place. Torry Holt was absolutely dominant for a few years in a way no other reciever was, on a team (let alone an era) that gave others every opportunity to be better than him, and he got the job done anyway.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

I was glancing over Holt's gamelogs, and I noticed that he caught a pass in every single game of his career, including playoffs.

That's 173 regular season games in a row.

What's the record?

 

[Hasselbeck]

The statistical comparisons of Holt to Monk and Reed miss the point. Monk was 2 eras prior to Holt, and Reed was 1 era prior.

And you are also comparing Holt to the lowest common denominator. Monk is one of the weakest WRs in the HOF, and Reed isn't even in the HOF. And Reed's HOF resume is much stronger than Holt's...equal stats in a less-passing friendly era, equal pro bowls, and Reed basically doubles Holt's postseason numbers.

Holt was a nice WR, but I think he's more comparable to guys like Rod Smith, Jimmy Smith, Isaac Bruce. I don't think Holt was an extraordinary WR. And I think Tim Brown should get into the HOF before Holt.

I mainly threw those guys out there because (well aside from Carter) they are the consensus "fringe" guys year after year.

 

[Madman55]

I was glancing over Holt's gamelogs, and I noticed that he caught a pass in every single game of his career, including playoffs.

That's 173 regular season games in a row.

What's the record?

Jerry Rice - 284 games in a row
Marvin Harrison - 190 games
T.O - 185 games.

 

[Senser81]

I think this statement actually helps the Holt-to-HOF argument. He was the absolute best and put up amazing numbers in a pass heavy offense loaded with talent. in other words. there were always 3 recievers and a running back around him that would have also done amazing things with the ball, and yet he excelled in it. The argument could also be made that he was the element that truly allowed it to even be a pass heavy offense in the first place. Torry Holt was absolutely dominant for a few years in a way no other reciever was, on a team (let alone an era) that gave others every opportunity to be better than him, and he got the job done anyway.

I guess. But IMO, Holt was like the 4th best skill position guy for the first part of his career. Warner and Faulk were winning NFL MVP awards, and Isaac Bruce was a great WR in his own right. You make seem as if the entire Rams team was feeding off of Holt's greatness, which wasn't the case.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

I guess. But IMO, Holt was like the 4th best skill position guy for the first part of his career. Warner and Faulk were winning NFL MVP awards, and Isaac Bruce was a great WR in his own right. You make seem as if the entire Rams team was feeding off of Holt's greatness, which wasn't the case.

This is true, because Bruce was the clear cut #1 WR until about 2001/2002-ish.

Holt surpassed him by the end of 2002, and was the cleear #1 from that point forward.

Bruce was Warner's guy, Holt really emerged and had his best seasons with Bulger.