How Holt ended up below Housh is beyond me. With only a year difference in age, I can't fathom why Housh would be preferred aside from "short memory syndrome".
Housh is coming off his best year of his career and his yardage doesn't beat Holt since 1999 when Holt was a rookie. Sure, Housh had 12 TDs this year, but considering that's his 1st time ever cracking double digits and TDs are a lot more variable, I'll take Holt's 6 straight 90+ and 1300 yd/season average (including his rookie year) over Housh's career year. On top of that, Holt's situation was downright awful this past year and can really only get better. Housh will likely lose CJ and no one knows what kind of effect that could have on his #'s.
I really don't understand that at all.
ETA--Housh has only one top 10 finish in his career (6 years). Holt has 6 out of his 9 years played. If for nothing else, which of these 2 would you think would have the best chance to finish top 5 or higher? Holt or Houshmandzadeh? When you get to this point in the rankings, that reason alone should help you rank 2 similar guys in terms of recent #'s and age.
Its not the age that separates the two for me.
Its the wear and tear on Torry Holt, and his highly suspect knees. He played on them this year, and I give him credit for that. But it does seem questionable if he's going to last much longer IMO. So for the upside that Holt may offer in the short term over Housh, the difference isn't worth it for the chance of Holts' health collapsing. Holt has 805 receptions in his career. He's now passed James Lofton, Micheal Irvin and is now rapidly approaching Jimmy Smith and Steve Largent. Those guys all had long and productive careers.
As for your Housh has only one top 10 finish comment, that's kind of misleading as he's finished 15th, 11th, and 7th the last 3 years. Add in the fact that his 11th place finish in 2006 included two missed games. Housh finished 5th that year in ppg. Ahead of Torry Holt.
I honestly think Housh doesn't get the credit around here that he deserves. Since week three of 2006 (Housh missed weeks 1 and 2) he is right in the middle of the top 10 WRs. A rock solid #1 WR for two years running.
I am acutally having a hard time with Holt going before Jennings. Jennings showed this year that he can perform like a #1 fantasy WR. Would you really trade a 24 year old WR like that for a 32 year old with gimpy knees? Or a 35 year old WR? Owens and Holt may have some years left, but either one could be done, abruptly. See Shaun Alexander, Marvin Harrison etc.
Are you talking about those highly suspect knees that caused him to miss all of zero games this past year? There was lots of media talk about it and how he was going to have lots of problems with it and in the end it turned out to be nothing. If anything, Housh has shown himself to be quite injury prone and to never really complete a full season. That's fine if you want to worry about Holt's knees, but considering the only info on that you can base it on is what is reported to you and those reports seemed to essentially make a lot more of it than it turned out to be, I'll choose to just let Holt go out and continue to produce. Add in the fact that his game isn't predicated on speed and he's the type of WR that should still have 2-3 yrs at the ELITE level. As someone pointed out, think TO 3 yrs ago.Now, you also want to worry about being "misleading" with Housh's rankings, but we often talk about top 10 and those #'s were simply out of the top 10. Close, yes, but out of the top 10. Holt's were IN the top 10. Not trying to be misleading at all. Holt's finishes are simply better overall with a much longer history. Add in the consistency he brings to the table and him being out of the top 15 at the age of 32 is awesome for those who still believe in him.
Finally, that's nice how well Housh has done since week 3 of 2006. At the same time, since
2003, Holt has finished 2nd, 7th, 6th, 6th, and then 13th last year on a horrid Rams team. And that's without PPR. Factor in Holt catching 90+ balls for the last 6 years, and he has even more value. He's a WR that's valuable no matter what the format is. Overall, that's just simply better and more consistent over a longer period of time.
I can understand someone wanting a younger WR because of Holt's age and potential for injury, but you can't use that reasoning to take Housh instead.
