Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Ghost Rider

If Torry Holt really is done...is he a Hall of Famer?

If Torry Holt really is done...is he a Hall of Famer?   288 members have voted

  1. 1. If Torry Holt really is done...is he a Hall of Famer?

    • Yes
      146
    • No
      117

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

183 posts in this topic

Holt is not what I would call a HOF type WR. His numbers are so inflated right now for playing in that offense. Right now I think there might 3 HOF WR out there. Moss has been a force in the game for a while, but since leaving MN he had last year that was worth a crap. TO is really showing signs that he is slowing down and needs to comeback with some more good stats to be HOF. TO's attitude will also hurt him come voting time. Marvin Harrison numbers will look HOF but the arguement can be made has had a ton of talent aound him and only won one SuperBowl during his career.

At this point I dont see any other WR that will make the hall, but I could be over looking some one. Lot of young guys that could make but they have lot of hill to climb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. As others have mentioned, too much competition at the WR position.

Could he get in? He might. Is he a "lock," as some have suggested? Of course not. Very few players are "locks" to get into the Hall of Fame. Names like Favre, Ray Lewis, Curtis Martin, and Marshall Faulk come to mind. Holt has had a nice career, but he's not quite at the level of these other players I've mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> MOP:

Pats fan here... and no, I don't think Randy Moss is necessarily a Hall of Famer at this point. A few more seasons (god willing) with Brady, and barring any injuries, he'll almost definitely get in, but at this point, I think he's borderline. He's clearly been the best receiver in the game at times, but there have also been some issues with consistency, and quitting on the Oakland teams won't help his case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the point stands, we're talking about this guy like he's a clear cut lock, but if he wasn't the best FF reciever over a period, or even a season, to call him a lock for anything gets quite dicey.But I will concede the point partially on Martz, he had more success than I recalled in St. Louis. It was his departure and Detroit run of gunslinging that colored my opinion, but lets not forget why he got fired, its because his pass happy teams would frequently just abandon the run. How many 9 carry games did Marshall Faulk have. When you have a coach committed to playing Arena football,your stastics will reflect that, but he had a lot more success than a I recalled.

Once again, fantasy football does not matter when it comes to making the Hall of Fame. We are talking about REAL football here. As for playing in a pass-happy offense, is Randy Moss not HoF-worthy because all of his best seasons were put up in Minnesota under Dennis Green (which was a pass-happy offense) and with a New England team that "ran the score up" (I put that in quotes because I do not believe in running up the score in the pros, but it was the best way to put it) almost every week? Put Moss in a conservative offense and what would his numbers be? That seems to be what you are saying about Holt. Bottom line: Players are judged on what they did, not what they could have or might have done.
Please, Holt is a fine player, but Moss is a game changer and if he had been in St. Louis in those days, I'd bet you'd have seen a 25+ TD season. Moss belongs in a debate with Jerry Rice(where is not yet there and probably blew his chance with the Oakland run) but he's a clear head above Holt.Is Holt better than Moss, Harrison or T.O.? Definately not in my book and he's now got quasi contemporaries like Boldin who if they stay healthy, have the age to figure prominently in statistical comparison to him. He's in with the first guys I mentioned I think, players like Hines Ward, who will get support but are down the list of guys to go in. Holt rode the front end of a recieving boom that will be evaluated in context when his HOF time comes.And on the reciever backlog, you have Carmichael, Fryar and Jimmy Sniff mentioned above. And throw in a guy like Andre Reed who was much more the Hall of Famer to me than Holt. Ike Bruce will get consideration.There seems to be a bias or a block against WR's in HOF voting, and that is what I primarily consider when thinking about Holt for the Hall. Factoring in this with the fact with:1. He's 4th, at best, amongst contemporaries2. Statistical compiliation isn't rewarded(see Monk)3. There are better players struggling for inclusionHe's got a long road ahead. Of course, his book isn't written yet and if he's healthy, he can certainly put together a few seasons to make his case more clearcut. But in the context of this debate as framed, if he's done, is he in now? The answer is no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please, Holt is a fine player, but Moss is a game changer and if he had been in St. Louis in those days, I'd bet you'd have seen a 25+ TD season. Moss belongs in a debate with Jerry Rice(where is not yet there and probably blew his chance with the Oakland run) but he's a clear head above Holt.Is Holt better than Moss, Harrison or T.O.? Definately not in my book and he's now got quasi contemporaries like Boldin who if they stay healthy, have the age to figure prominently in statistical comparison to him. He's in with the first guys I mentioned I think, players like Hines Ward, who will get support but are down the list of guys to go in. Holt rode the front end of a recieving boom that will be evaluated in context when his HOF time comes.And on the reciever backlog, you have Carmichael, Fryar and Jimmy Sniff mentioned above. And throw in a guy like Andre Reed who was much more the Hall of Famer to me than Holt. Ike Bruce will get consideration.There seems to be a bias or a block against WR's in HOF voting, and that is what I primarily consider when thinking about Holt for the Hall. Factoring in this with the fact with:1. He's 4th, at best, amongst contemporaries2. Statistical compiliation isn't rewarded(see Monk)3. There are better players struggling for inclusionHe's got a long road ahead. Of course, his book isn't written yet and if he's healthy, he can certainly put together a few seasons to make his case more clearcut. But in the context of this debate as framed, if he's done, is he in now? The answer is no.

Moss absolutely does not belong in a conversation with Jerry Rice. Rice's numbers are absurd, not to mention that he led the league in receiving yards six (!!!!) times, while also leading the league in touchdown receptions six times. Moss has NEVER led the NFL in receiving yards. Plus, Rice has the rep as being the hardest-working WR ever, while Moss is a notoriously lazy player who only plays when he wants to. No comparison at all when looking at their careers. Had Moss had Rice's worth ethic and drive to be the best, he probably would have been as good, but that is not the case. I agree that it will be difficult for Holt to get in, especially right away, but when comparing him to his peers, he has a strong case. The only WR of the last ten years I would say is clearly ahead of him is Marvin Harrison. Owens and Moss both have too many off-the-field issues that will not help their causes. It is too early to talk about a guy like Boldin. He looks like a special WR, but it is simply too early to speculate on him.As for statistical compilation, that might be true, but it is not like Holt is a guy who was merely a compiler. Like has been stated, he is the ONLY WR to ever post six consecutive seasons of 1,300 yards or more. Regardless of what kind of offense he played in, that is damn impressive. And it is not like he is the only WR to ever play in a pass-happy offense, so why penalize him for playing in Martz's pass-happy offense, when plenty of other WRs have had the opportunity to play in similar-type offenses, yet every single one of them failed to do what Holt did. To exemplify how impressive Holt's six consecutive seasons of 1,300 yards of more is, consider that Jerry Rice, far and away the best WR ever, never had more than three seasons in a row of 1,300 yards in a row, and he played in the WCO, which is an offense where WRs are set up to flourish in. No, I am not saying Holt is as good as Rice, or even really comparing them; I am just making that one comparison to demonstrate how consistently great Holt was during his peak years. His lack of TDs in the early years is a slight detriment to him, but consider that in those years, Marshall Faulk was an absolute beast and Isaac Bruce was more of the red zone weapon. Holt rarely had balls thrown to him inside the 10. But, from '03-'06, the years where Faulk and Bruce both started to tail off a bit, Holt scored 41 TDs (in those four seasons), so he proved that he could be a valuable red zone weapon (more red zone touches resulted in the higher TD totals), so his lack of TDs early was more about lack of opportunity than anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please, Holt is a fine player, but Moss is a game changer and if he had been in St. Louis in those days, I'd bet you'd have seen a 25+ TD season. Moss belongs in a debate with Jerry Rice(where is not yet there and probably blew his chance with the Oakland run) but he's a clear head above Holt.Is Holt better than Moss, Harrison or T.O.? Definately not in my book and he's now got quasi contemporaries like Boldin who if they stay healthy, have the age to figure prominently in statistical comparison to him. He's in with the first guys I mentioned I think, players like Hines Ward, who will get support but are down the list of guys to go in. Holt rode the front end of a recieving boom that will be evaluated in context when his HOF time comes.And on the reciever backlog, you have Carmichael, Fryar and Jimmy Sniff mentioned above. And throw in a guy like Andre Reed who was much more the Hall of Famer to me than Holt. Ike Bruce will get consideration.There seems to be a bias or a block against WR's in HOF voting, and that is what I primarily consider when thinking about Holt for the Hall. Factoring in this with the fact with:1. He's 4th, at best, amongst contemporaries2. Statistical compiliation isn't rewarded(see Monk)3. There are better players struggling for inclusionHe's got a long road ahead. Of course, his book isn't written yet and if he's healthy, he can certainly put together a few seasons to make his case more clearcut. But in the context of this debate as framed, if he's done, is he in now? The answer is no.

Moss absolutely does not belong in a conversation with Jerry Rice. Rice's numbers are absurd, not to mention that he led the league in receiving yards six (!!!!) times, while also leading the league in touchdown receptions six times. Moss has NEVER led the NFL in receiving yards. Plus, Rice has the rep as being the hardest-working WR ever, while Moss is a notoriously lazy player who only plays when he wants to. No comparison at all when looking at their careers. Had Moss had Rice's worth ethic and drive to be the best, he probably would have been as good, but that is not the case. I agree that it will be difficult for Holt to get in, especially right away, but when comparing him to his peers, he has a strong case. The only WR of the last ten years I would say is clearly ahead of him is Marvin Harrison. Owens and Moss both have too many off-the-field issues that will not help their causes. It is too early to talk about a guy like Boldin. He looks like a special WR, but it is simply too early to speculate on him.As for statistical compilation, that might be true, but it is not like Holt is a guy who was merely a compiler. Like has been stated, he is the ONLY WR to ever post six consecutive seasons of 1,300 yards or more. Regardless of what kind of offense he played in, that is damn impressive. And it is not like he is the only WR to ever play in a pass-happy offense, so why penalize him for playing in Martz's pass-happy offense, when plenty of other WRs have had the opportunity to play in similar-type offenses, yet every single one of them failed to do what Holt did. To exemplify how impressive Holt's six consecutive seasons of 1,300 yards of more is, consider that Jerry Rice, far and away the best WR ever, never had more than three seasons in a row of 1,300 yards in a row, and he played in the WCO, which is an offense where WRs are set up to flourish in. No, I am not saying Holt is as good as Rice, or even really comparing them; I am just making that one comparison to demonstrate how consistently great Holt was during his peak years. His lack of TDs in the early years is a slight detriment to him, but consider that in those years, Marshall Faulk was an absolute beast and Isaac Bruce was more of the red zone weapon. Holt rarely had balls thrown to him inside the 10. But, from '03-'06, the years where Faulk and Bruce both started to tail off a bit, Holt scored 41 TDs (in those four seasons), so he proved that he could be a valuable red zone weapon (more red zone touches resulted in the higher TD totals), so his lack of TDs early was more about lack of opportunity than anything else.
We shall agree to disagree, and I'll definately say he's 2 notches below Rice, but my point is, he's closer to Rice than Holt is to him in my opinion. His attitude and lethargy, especially in Oaktown as I mentioned, ended that speculation. But Moss is 31 and if Brady had stayed healthy, I think he might have made run at Rice's TD record if he put together 5 or 6 more strong seasons. What if's on that front though.But a point to ponder in what you said is what the off the field or reputation stuff will mean. Michael Irvin, with not a slam dunk resume to me, but again those all important rings, got in very soon after retirement. Some times the player overrides the rep, ala LT. Moss will walk in the Hall, maybe T.O. has to wait and it would probably hurt a marginal canidacy of a guy like Chad Johnson(who I"m not suggesting for the Hall but his digits are probably better than you would think they were to me at least). Does it hurt Cris Carter, who really turned himself around to be a standup guy? How much does and should it hurt? And hell, Marvin Harrison, a first ballot guy, may have off field questions arise before he gets considered. Holt, to his credit, has been an exempilary citizen, but the fact that Irvin got in before Monk really makes you think. Edited by NY/NJMFDIVER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Torry Holt has played nine seasons in the NFL. No player in NFL history has more receiving yards through nine seasons than Torry Holt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good discussion from all. He's definitely getting in- he's part of the one of the all time great NFL team names/monikers- "The Greatest Show on Turf". I know this is very minor and ultimatey he will be judged on his body of work, but as time goes on, those that remember the late 90's/early 2000's will remember that with a fondness for the offensive assault that it was. Like it or not, those things "stick" and become part of NFL Lore.

Of all the team names that I can think of (not that these are comparable or exact) there is a certain fond memory that we have in thinking back to that era and in general, those players get the benefit of the doubt (e.g.) Air Coryell, Steel Curtain, Purple People Eaters, Big Three, etc......

Holt has been a model of consistency in posting HUGE #'s year in and year out. This year is not indicative of his career and he'll put together two or three more years of better than average performance to pad the career stat line. LOCK.. :lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And on the reciever backlog, you have Carmichael, Fryar and Jimmy Sniff mentioned above. And throw in a guy like Andre Reed who was much more the Hall of Famer to me than Holt. Ike Bruce will get consideration.

IMO Holt is clearly more HOF worthy than Carmichael, Fryar, and Jimmy Smith.I think Reed and Bruce are deserving and will probably make it.

None of that really bears on Holt's chance of making it.

Edited by Just Win Baby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to be a bias or a block against WR's in HOF voting, and that is what I primarily consider when thinking about Holt for the Hall.

I disagree. Here are a couple of recent posts relevant to that notion:

19 WRs have been elected to the HOF since 1968. That is 1 WR elected every 2.1 years.

I expect Carter, Rice, and Brown to make it within the next 3-4 years, in line with or slightly ahead of the pattern to date.

The next 5 year window after that will see guys like Bruce, Jimmy Smith, Rod Smith, and McCardell become eligible... a bit of a dry spell between the Carter-Rice-Brown run and the Harrison-Moss-Owens-Holt run to come. That may help Bruce to make it, but I don't see the others getting in. Andre Reed could make it during that span.

Then the next 5 years will see Harrison, Owens, Moss, and likely Holt make it.

On a related note : what do you guys think the reason is that the HOF committee is so stingy when it comes to wide receivers making it in?

Are they really stingy for WRs? The HOF defines its modern era as "a majority of a members' career that occurred after 1946." These are the number of HOF members by position in the modern era:

QB - 23

RB (HBs and FBs) - 25

WR - 19

TE - 7

OL - 33

DL - 26

LB - 17

DB - 19

Specialists - 1

Looking at these numbers, I wouldn't necessarily think WRs are underrepresented. I'm sure some will argue that RBs and especially QBs could be overrepresented, but the counter to that (in comparison to WR) is how much more often they handle the ball and how much more instrumental they are to their teams' success (in general).

Edited by Just Win Baby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Factoring in this with the fact with:1. He's 4th, at best, amongst contemporaries

When you say he is 4th at best among contemporaries, I'm sure you mean he is definitely behind Moss, Owens, and Harrison. But to throw in the "at best" part implies you think he may also be behind some others. Please name them.

2. Statistical compiliation isn't rewarded(see Monk)

One example, like Monk, does not prove a rule. Besides that, Monk compiled his numbers more through longevity than Holt has (224 games for Monk and only 149 for Holt so far). When I think of a compiler as it is used here, I don't think of a player like Holt, who has been dominant for several years.

3. There are better players struggling for inclusion

Please name them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Torry Holt has played nine seasons in the NFL. No player in NFL history has more receiving yards through nine seasons than Torry Holt.

:goodposting:

Edited by Just Win Baby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cris Carter would probably be an example some would give of a better player who is struggling for inclusion, but was he ever a top WR for an extended period of time? Okay, he was a TD scoring machine, and I will give him that, but was he ever a guy who you could have said, "He is the best WR in the NFL," and then make a serious argument for? Probably not. I am not saying Carter should not be in, because I think he should be, but I do not think he is a no-brainer. Like it or not, his struggles early in his career do matter (he didn't hit the 1,000-yard mark until his 7th season!). Eight Pro Bowl appearances and two 1st-Team All-Pros work in his favor, though.

I guess, for me...if you told me that I could have either Carter or Holt for one season, at their peak, I would definitely take Holt.

Edited by Ghost Rider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cris Carter would probably be an example some would give of a better player who is struggling for inclusion, but was he ever a top WR for an extended period of time? Okay, he was a TD scoring machine, and I will give him that, but was he ever a guy who you could have said, "He is the best WR in the NFL," and then make a serious argument for? Probably not. I am not saying Carter should not be in, because I think he should be, but I do not think he is a no-brainer. Like it or not, his struggles early in his career do matter (he didn't hit the 1,000-yard mark until his 7th season!). Eight Pro Bowl appearances and two 1st-Team All-Pros work in his favor, though. I guess, for me...if you told me that I could have either Carter or Holt for one season, at their peak, I would definitely take Holt.

:lmao: at Cris Carter "struggling for inclusion." Carter has been eligible for one year, and he was a finalist. I fully expect him to be part of the next class, and IMO he should have been in this year's class.

And :lmao: at the notion that Carter was not a top WR for an extended period of time. He made 8 straight Pro Bowls and was 1st team All Pro twice during that span. He caught 122 passes in back to back seasons! He is #2 all time in receptions, #6 all time in receiving yards, and #3 all time in receiving TDs. You don't get those numbers without being a great WR for an extended period of time.

It's true that you could not have made a credible argument that Carter was the best WR in the NFL... but if that is your criteria, then we can't elect any WR that played when Jerry Rice played, as Carter did. And I don't think you can really argue that Holt was ever the best WR in the league either. Holt's best season was 2003, and Moss was better that year; Holt was not first team All Pro in any other season, so clearly others were better.

I do agree that Holt's peak was better than Carter's, but Carter accomplished more than Holt has so far. And Carter is a stone cold lock to make the HOF.

Edited by Just Win Baby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you miss where I said some would argue that he is struggling for inclusion? I would not, which is why I said that Carter should be in the Hall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you miss where I said some would argue that he is struggling for inclusion? I would not, which is why I said that Carter should be in the Hall.

I don't see how anyone could argue that position. It is laughable.

And you said he is not a nobrainer HOFer, which IMO is wrong.

And you said Carter was never the top WR in the NFL, implying that is an important consideration in a player's selection. Clearly, if a player was the best at his position, it would be a positive for HOF induction, but it is just as clearly not a prerequisite. There are a number of HOFers who were never the best at their position. Just at WR, I'd say Irvin, Swann, Stallworth, Monk, Biletnikoff, Joiner, and Lofton are all examples of HOFers who were never the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I am underrating Carter a bit. It is possible. ;) And what I said earlier was that a player should have been one of the absolute best at his position at one point or another (say, top 3 -5), which I wouldn't have said Carter was, but again, I could be wrong. I'll have to go back and look at it again when I have more time, as I am pressed for it at the moment.

Also, the point being, as far as saying one of the best is, usually the top 3-5 guys at a position, an argument can be made that any of them would be the best, wouldn't you agree? It is very rare that one guy is the best at his position, no questions asked. Jerry Rice for an extended period was an obvious exception. That is why I said that about Carter; if he was one of the top 3-5, an argument could be made that he was the best (although in this case, make it for the 2nd best, as Rice was clear and away number one for so long, that other top WRs should not be penalized during that time period for playing at the same time as the greatest ever). I hope that made sense. :suds:

Edited by Ghost Rider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to chime in on the Carter/Holt comparison. After looking at the numbers, and using Ghost Rider's criteria, Chris Carter was definitely one of the top wrs of his generation. Going further, Carter compares more favorably to his contemporaries than Holt does to his fellow wrs.

Based on length of career I would rank them about even in receptions and I will give the unmistakable advantage in yardage to Holt. However, Carter more than makes up for the yardage gap with his outstanding td numbers. And while Carter played opposite Moss for four years he still did most of his damage pre-Moss whereas Holt had Bruce for most of his career to date.

I'd say Carter is a more qualified hall candidate than Holt at this point.

Top fives for Holt and Carter:

Holt

Receptions- 4 (#1 1x)

Yards- 4 (#1 2x)

TDs- 2

Carter

Receptions- 6 (#1 1x)

Yards- 0

TDs- 7 (#1 3x)

Top Tens:

Holt

Receptions- 5 (#1 1x)

Yards- 8 (#1 2x)

TDs- 4

Carter

Receptions- 8 (#1 1x)

Yards- 5

TDs- 8 (#1 3x)

If you want to use fanatsy rank by position, Carter has 8 years top ten and 4 top five while Holt has 6 top ten and only one 1 top five.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Factoring in this with the fact with:1. He's 4th, at best, amongst contemporaries

When you say he is 4th at best among contemporaries, I'm sure you mean he is definitely behind Moss, Owens, and Harrison. But to throw in the "at best" part implies you think he may also be behind some others. Please name them.

2. Statistical compiliation isn't rewarded(see Monk)

One example, like Monk, does not prove a rule. Besides that, Monk compiled his numbers more through longevity than Holt has (224 games for Monk and only 149 for Holt so far). When I think of a compiler as it is used here, I don't think of a player like Holt, who has been dominant for several years.

3. There are better players struggling for inclusion

Please name them.
Being that Holt is the only strong guy to start in the 1999 class, over his exact time frame, of 1999-2008, you can make a fairly convincing argument for that exact time period, he is the 4th best wide. But in any given season:1999: Rookie season, not top tier guy yet2000: Not even the number one on his own team, Moss, Owens and Harrison over him. Does lead the league in yardage, but he has his biggest games when Bruce is rested at the end of the season. Rod Smith has an mostly comprable season as well2001: Moss, Owens and Harrison better. Rod Smith and Jimmy Smith have better seasons2002: Moss, Owens and Harrison better, as is Hines Ward and Eric Moulds2003: Holts best season, but still probably 2nd to Moss as the best WR in football2004: Not a top 4 guy, too many other candidates to list but a definate top 10 guy2005: Holts last elite season, not a top 4 guy, lots of other candidates.Thats the season to season rank of who's better. Over his entire time, as I said, tricky to judge with his window but there two guys who sort of are age contemporaries are the aforementioned. Hines Ward, who right now I'd submit that Holt is better than, but if Holt is done and Hines still produces, he passes him. The other guy who overlaps but is a few years after him is Chad Johnson. Neither of these guys had QBs on the level of Warner and Bulger. You can argue chicken and egg over the QBs making Holt or vice versa, but he had QBs put up 5 pro bowl campaigns in his career versus Ward has had one QB season of that and Chad Johnson had 2. Holt is absolutely much more dominant than Monk, but again, I point the position as being something that was dissed, especialy by "old time football" types and that is really Monk's bugaboo. I wouldn't go so far as to give Holt the compiler tag, and if I did, I was wrong.Irving Fryar and Andre Reed, are to this point, better player struggling for inclusion. I didn't watch Bullet Bob Hayes, but it actually sounds like this could be a similar case to Holt. Electrfying athlete who's just short.You sell 19 wides in the hall like thats impressive, but when you think every team is starting 2 of them, the representation drops more dramatically. But I was suprised about the diminished number of D linemen in the hall too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A really good receiver. One of the better ones of his time. But not one of the true best of his time, imo - a half notch below. He played in a bigtime offensive era, in a great system, with a true HoFer on the other side of him. Really really good player, but not quite HoF imo.

BS. Lemme list some stats for you:1974 thru 1982 - 336 catches, 5462 yds, 51 TD's - Inducted into HOF1974 thru 1987 - 537 catches, 8723 yds, 63 TD's - Inducted into HOF1998 thru 2007 - 805 catches, 11864 yds, 71 TD's1994 thru 2007 - 942 catches, 14109 yds, 84 TD'sThe stats for the 2 guys already inducted are Lynn Swann and John Stallworth. The second set of stats are obviously for Holt and Bruce. At this point, Holt has played 1 more more season than Swann, yet he has nearly 500 more receptions during that timeframe, and has twice the yardage. To say Holt will not make the HOF is insane. He is a lock, unless he commits murder.
Awful and irrelevant post. Can't compare statistics across eras, and Holt doesn't have the Super Bowl rings or performances those guys had.
:crazy: I agree. Comparing stats in different era's is a waste of time. Next someone will try to make the argument Vinny Testeverde deserves to be in the HOF. About Holt, I personally dont think he was the best reciever on his own team. A great reciever but a HOFer, in my opinion not yet. If you want to go by numbers, I. Bruce should probably go in before him. Sure fire WR HOFers in Holts era have to be Moss, Owens and Harrison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's not even close given the standard for HOF WR's.

Torry was never THE top reciever in the league in any year he played. Lots of guys alongside him who will be considered big time wides, and I'd bet they wait a year or a few to get in amongst T.O., Moss and Marvin.

Maybe it was a byproduct of his skill, but I always felt Holt was somewhat of a statistical disappointment. Hell, even in fantasy, there were only a handful of years you could count on him as a WR1.

How long have you followed FF? For 8 straight yrs from 2000 thru 2007 he averaged over 94 catches for 1385 yards and 8 TD's. WTF are you looking for in a WR1? BTW, he finished as a top-8 WR in 6 of those years. And the 2 crappy seasons he finished outside the top, he finished as WR13 and WR15.
I think the point is, that no matter how good he was, he was never the best in any of those seasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As of right now, the only active WRs who are locks to the HOF are Moss, TO, and Harrison. Holt needs 1 or 2 more solid seasons to get there IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Factoring in this with the fact with:1. He's 4th, at best, amongst contemporaries

When you say he is 4th at best among contemporaries, I'm sure you mean he is definitely behind Moss, Owens, and Harrison. But to throw in the "at best" part implies you think he may also be behind some others. Please name them.

2. Statistical compiliation isn't rewarded(see Monk)

One example, like Monk, does not prove a rule. Besides that, Monk compiled his numbers more through longevity than Holt has (224 games for Monk and only 149 for Holt so far). When I think of a compiler as it is used here, I don't think of a player like Holt, who has been dominant for several years.

3. There are better players struggling for inclusion

Please name them.

Being that Holt is the only strong guy to start in the 1999 class, over his exact time frame, of 1999-2008, you can make a fairly convincing argument for that exact time period, he is the 4th best wide. But in any given season:

1999: Rookie season, not top tier guy yet

2000: Not even the number one on his own team, Moss, Owens and Harrison over him. Does lead the league in yardage, but he has his biggest games when Bruce is rested at the end of the season. Rod Smith has an mostly comprable season as well

2001: Moss, Owens and Harrison better. Rod Smith and Jimmy Smith have better seasons

2002: Moss, Owens and Harrison better, as is Hines Ward and Eric Moulds

2003: Holts best season, but still probably 2nd to Moss as the best WR in football

2004: Not a top 4 guy, too many other candidates to list but a definate top 10 guy

2005: Holts last elite season, not a top 4 guy, lots of other candidates.

Thats the season to season rank of who's better. Over his entire time, as I said, tricky to judge with his window but there two guys who sort of are age contemporaries are the aforementioned. Hines Ward, who right now I'd submit that Holt is better than, but if Holt is done and Hines still produces, he passes him. The other guy who overlaps but is a few years after him is Chad Johnson. Neither of these guys had QBs on the level of Warner and Bulger. You can argue chicken and egg over the QBs making Holt or vice versa, but he had QBs put up 5 pro bowl campaigns in his career versus Ward has had one QB season of that and Chad Johnson had 2.

OK, I think it's obvious the first issue was about career to date, not individual seasons. And it's good that you agree Holt has been better thus far than Ward and Johnson, which I think should be obvious to all. As a side note, I disagree that Palmer and Roethlisberger are not on the level of Bulger.

Irving Fryar and Andre Reed, are to this point, better player struggling for inclusion. I didn't watch Bullet Bob Hayes, but it actually sounds like this could be a similar case to Holt. Electrfying athlete who's just short.

I agree Reed should be in. His resume is more compelling than Holt's. However, I don't think he's struggling for inclusion, at least not yet. He has been a finalist the past two years. It's only a matter of time.

Fryar will not and should not make the HOF. Fryar was never 1st team All Pro. He did not win a ring. He won no major awards I am aware of. He has slim leads on Holt in receptions and receiving yards, but Holt will pass him in both categories this year or early next year. His TD lead is more substantial, but Holt still is likely to catch him. More importantly, Fryar completely fits the mold of a compiler. He played 255 games. That's more than 100 more games than Holt. Fryar played 17 seasons and was only top 5 in receptions, receiving yards, and receiving TDs once each. The comparison between Holt and Fryar is not even close.

As for Bob Hayes, I am not old enough to have seen him play, and he played in a different era, so statistics aren't as meaningful. He was first team All Pro twice, which is good... though there were only 15 and 16 teams in the league in those seasons. He has been eligible for 28 years and isn't in, so he'd have to get in as an old timer/senior candidate. I suppose that does qualify for struggling for inclusion, but the implication of that statement is that he should be in. I'm not sure that is true, but it's hard for me to judge.

You sell 19 wides in the hall like thats impressive, but when you think every team is starting 2 of them, the representation drops more dramatically. But I was suprised about the diminished number of D linemen in the hall too.

How many WRs do you think should be in from the modern era? I think 19 in 40 years is pretty good. Yes, more WRs start than at QB or RB, but I already pointed out that QBs and RBs handle the ball much more often. I think LB is the most underrepresented position, followed by DL and DB. The offense seems fine to me. It's not easy to get into the HOF, and I think that is good.

Edited by Just Win Baby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's not even close given the standard for HOF WR's.

Torry was never THE top reciever in the league in any year he played. Lots of guys alongside him who will be considered big time wides, and I'd bet they wait a year or a few to get in amongst T.O., Moss and Marvin.

Maybe it was a byproduct of his skill, but I always felt Holt was somewhat of a statistical disappointment. Hell, even in fantasy, there were only a handful of years you could count on him as a WR1.

How long have you followed FF? For 8 straight yrs from 2000 thru 2007 he averaged over 94 catches for 1385 yards and 8 TD's. WTF are you looking for in a WR1? BTW, he finished as a top-8 WR in 6 of those years. And the 2 crappy seasons he finished outside the top, he finished as WR13 and WR15.
I think the point is, that no matter how good he was, he was never the best in any of those seasons.
There are a lot of HOF WRs that were never the best WR in any of their seasons. I named some earlier: Swann, Stallworth, Monk, Biletnikoff, Joiner, and Lofton are good examples. There are a number of things that go into HOF consideration. Being the best at a position for some number of years is certainly helpful, and many HOF players can make that claim. But that is not a prerequisite for HOF induction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Factoring in this with the fact with:1. He's 4th, at best, amongst contemporaries

When you say he is 4th at best among contemporaries, I'm sure you mean he is definitely behind Moss, Owens, and Harrison. But to throw in the "at best" part implies you think he may also be behind some others. Please name them.

2. Statistical compiliation isn't rewarded(see Monk)

One example, like Monk, does not prove a rule. Besides that, Monk compiled his numbers more through longevity than Holt has (224 games for Monk and only 149 for Holt so far). When I think of a compiler as it is used here, I don't think of a player like Holt, who has been dominant for several years.

3. There are better players struggling for inclusion

Please name them.
Being that Holt is the only strong guy to start in the 1999 class, over his exact time frame, of 1999-2008, you can make a fairly convincing argument for that exact time period, he is the 4th best wide. But in any given season:1999: Rookie season, not top tier guy yet2000: Not even the number one on his own team, Moss, Owens and Harrison over him. Does lead the league in yardage, but he has his biggest games when Bruce is rested at the end of the season. Rod Smith has an mostly comprable season as well2001: Moss, Owens and Harrison better. Rod Smith and Jimmy Smith have better seasons2002: Moss, Owens and Harrison better, as is Hines Ward and Eric Moulds2003: Holts best season, but still probably 2nd to Moss as the best WR in football2004: Not a top 4 guy, too many other candidates to list but a definate top 10 guy2005: Holts last elite season, not a top 4 guy, lots of other candidates.Thats the season to season rank of who's better. Over his entire time, as I said, tricky to judge with his window but there two guys who sort of are age contemporaries are the aforementioned. Hines Ward, who right now I'd submit that Holt is better than, but if Holt is done and Hines still produces, he passes him. The other guy who overlaps but is a few years after him is Chad Johnson. Neither of these guys had QBs on the level of Warner and Bulger. You can argue chicken and egg over the QBs making Holt or vice versa, but he had QBs put up 5 pro bowl campaigns in his career versus Ward has had one QB season of that and Chad Johnson had 2.
OK, I think it's obvious the first issue was about career to date, not individual seasons. And it's good that you agree Holt has been better thus far than Ward and Johnson, which I think should be obvious to all. As a side note, I disagree that Palmer and Roethlisberger are not on the level of Bulger.

Irving Fryar and Andre Reed, are to this point, better player struggling for inclusion. I didn't watch Bullet Bob Hayes, but it actually sounds like this could be a similar case to Holt. Electrfying athlete who's just short.

I agree Reed should be in. His resume is more compelling than Holt's. However, I don't think he's struggling for inclusion, at least not yet. He has been a finalist the past two years. It's only a matter of time.Fryar will not and should not make the HOF. Fryar was never 1st team All Pro. He did not win a ring. He won no major awards I am aware of. He has slim leads on Holt in receptions and receiving yards, but Holt will pass him in both categories this year or early next year. His TD lead is more substantial, but Holt still is likely to catch him. More importantly, Fryar completely fits the mold of a compiler. He played 255 games. That's more than 100 more games than Holt. Fryar played 17 seasons and was only top 5 in receptions, receiving yards, and receiving TDs once each. The comparison between Holt and Fryar is not even close.As for Bob Hayes, I am not old enough to have seen him play, and he played in a different era, so statistics aren't as meaningful. He was first team All Pro twice, which is good... though there were only 15 and 16 teams in the league in those seasons. He has been eligible for 28 years and isn't in, so he'd have to get in as an old timer/senior candidate. I suppose that does qualify for struggling for inclusion, but the implication of that statement is that he should be in. I'm not sure that is true, but it's hard for me to judge.

You sell 19 wides in the hall like thats impressive, but when you think every team is starting 2 of them, the representation drops more dramatically. But I was suprised about the diminished number of D linemen in the hall too.

How many WRs do you think should be in from the modern era? I think 19 in 40 years is pretty good. Yes, more WRs start than at QB or RB, but I already pointed out that QBs and RBs handle the ball much more often. I think LB is the most underrepresented position, followed by DL and DB. The offense seems fine to me. It's not easy to get into the HOF, and I think that is good.
I"m running out and I'll resume this debate later, but if we've established he's not one of the big 3, and he was rarely among the 4 best WR in a given seasons, he's by defintion, a compiler if we're judging him as 4th best overall.As you state, eras overlap, and no one fits exactly in the 1999-08 era like Holt. So he gets to be the king of his era

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if we've established he's not one of the big 3, and he was rarely among the 4 best WR in a given seasons, he's by defintion, a compiler if we're judging him as 4th best overall.As you state, eras overlap, and no one fits exactly in the 1999-08 era like Holt. So he gets to be the king of his era

This is absurd. These are not accomplishments of a compiler:

Only WR in NFL history to have 6 consecutive seasons of at least 90 receptions

Only WR in NFL history to have 6 consecutive seasons of at least 1300 receiving yards

Only WR besides Rice and Brown in NFL history to have 9 consecutive seasons of at least 1000 receiving yards

Only WR besides Harrison in NFL history to have 2 seasons with at least 1600 receiving yards

Fastest player in NFL history to reach 10,000 receiving yards

Fastest player in NFL history to reach 11,000 receiving yards

Pro Bowl selection in 7 of 8 seasons prior to this year and in 7 of 9 seasons overall prior to this year

As for his standing relative to his peers, consider the following:

Harrison entered the NFL in 1996

Owens entered the NFL in 1996

Moss entered the NFL in 1998

All are HOFers IMO. That said, look at how the four of them rank among all WRs since 1999, when Holt entered the league:

Receptions:

#1 Harrison 869

#2 Holt 831

#3 Owens 750

#4 Moss 737

Receiving yards:

#1 Holt 12153

#2 Harrison 11736

#3 Moss 11351

#4 Owens 10948

Receiving TDs:

#1 Moss 111

#2 Owens 108

#3 Harrison 105

#4 Holt 72

His standing relative to those other three proves that he is in the same tier and is not a compiler.

Edited by Just Win Baby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you miss where I said some would argue that he is struggling for inclusion? I would not, which is why I said that Carter should be in the Hall.

I don't see how anyone could argue that position. It is laughable.

And you said he is not a nobrainer HOFer, which IMO is wrong.

And you said Carter was never the top WR in the NFL, implying that is an important consideration in a player's selection. Clearly, if a player was the best at his position, it would be a positive for HOF induction, but it is just as clearly not a prerequisite. There are a number of HOFers who were never the best at their position. Just at WR, I'd say Irvin, Swann, Stallworth, Monk, Biletnikoff, Joiner, and Lofton are all examples of HOFers who were never the best.

I think you could make a good argument that Swann was the best WR in the NFL circa 1975-1978 and that Lofton was the best of the early 80's. Obviously from 1986-1996 nobody but Rice could be considered the best but Irvin has an argument for second-best.

Carter probably would have gone in last year but for the Monk bandwagon. Time was running out for Monk and the voters presumably weren't going to put in more than one WR at a time. He'll get in but his main asset is TD's, an area where Holt has not really shone.

Holt has four big problems: Harrison, Owens, Moss, and Bruce. If Holt is truly done as a player (which was the premise of the original post), I don't think he can get in before any of those guys do. I also wouldn't say it's a given that Holt will have a better HOF case than Hines Ward despite what the raw numbers look like at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holt is a lock.

We wouldn't even be having this conversation if Carter and/or Holt played in a bigger market...and this isn't the MLB HOF...it's not all about longevity and/or numbers or Aikman and Irvin would be left out...it's more about FAME...can you tell the story of this generation of NFL without Chris Carter or Torry Holt...NO...NOT EVEN CLOSE...I don't care about 1st or 2nd ballot which is a totally different argument...but they're both NFL HOF'ers.Another one that makes me laugh is Kurt Warner...absolute HOF'er...can't talk about the last decade of the NFL without speaking of the Greatest Show on Turf...and he was the 2-time, TWO-TIME League MVP, and a SB MVP and is still putting up monster years...who gives a #### if he was an Arena guy and stocking groceries...the dude plays ball and deserves it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holt may or may not be a HoFer, but no way is he a lock. If you want to see the definition of a lock, start a poll that asks if Brett Favre is a HoFer. Compare the results to this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you miss where I said some would argue that he is struggling for inclusion? I would not, which is why I said that Carter should be in the Hall.

I don't see how anyone could argue that position. It is laughable.

And you said he is not a nobrainer HOFer, which IMO is wrong.

And you said Carter was never the top WR in the NFL, implying that is an important consideration in a player's selection. Clearly, if a player was the best at his position, it would be a positive for HOF induction, but it is just as clearly not a prerequisite. There are a number of HOFers who were never the best at their position. Just at WR, I'd say Irvin, Swann, Stallworth, Monk, Biletnikoff, Joiner, and Lofton are all examples of HOFers who were never the best.

I think you could make a good argument that Swann was the best WR in the NFL circa 1975-1978 and that Lofton was the best of the early 80's. Obviously from 1986-1996 nobody but Rice could be considered the best but Irvin has an argument for second-best.
Well, perhaps there are multiple ways to interpret this point. I interpreted this as whether or not the player was ever the best at his position in any given season.

IMO:

In 1975, Mel Gray and Cliff Branch were better than Swann.

In 1976, a lot of WRs were better than Swann.

In 1977, Nat Moore was better than Swann.

In 1978, Wesley Walker, John Jefferson, and Steve Largent were all better than Swann.

He was only first team All Pro once. From 1975 to 1978 (regular season), Swann was tied for #5 in receptions; #5 in receiving yards; and #1 in TDs. He added 30/636/6 in 9 postseason games, including two outstanding Super Bowl performances. I'm sure you are considering that as a big part of your comment on Swann.

IMO:

In 1980, John Jefferson was better than Lofton.

In 1981, Alfred Jenkins and Steve Watson were better than Lofton.

In 1982, Dwight Clark, Wes Chandler, and Charlie Brown were all better than Lofton.

In 1983, Mike Quick and Roy Green were better than Lofton, and multiple others were right there with Lofton.

In 1984, Roy Green, Mark Clayton, Steve Largent, and John Stallworth were better than Lofton.

Unlike Swann, Lofton only played 2 playoff games in that span, so he didn't get any help there. He was only first team All Pro once.

In 1991, you could argue that Irvin was second best to Rice... maybe even better that year. But from 1992 to 1995, he was always behind at least a few others, including Rice, Sharpe, Rison, Carter, and Bruce, among others.

Anyway, even though you cited some arguable examples, it is also true that there are HOFers who were never the best at their position, which was my point.

Carter probably would have gone in last year but for the Monk bandwagon. Time was running out for Monk and the voters presumably weren't going to put in more than one WR at a time. He'll get in but his main asset is TD's, an area where Holt has not really shone.

Agreed.

Holt has four big problems: Harrison, Owens, Moss, and Bruce. If Holt is truly done as a player (which was the premise of the original post), I don't think he can get in before any of those guys do. I also wouldn't say it's a given that Holt will have a better HOF case than Hines Ward despite what the raw numbers look like at the moment.

I think it's very unlikely Ward will have as good a case as Holt when their careers are all said and done. Otherwise, I agree with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said yes.

People that hang around forever and amass big numbers are called compilers. People that don't hang around forever and don't amass big numbers are directed to their career stats.

Tory Holt was the best 2-3 WRs in the league for a large part of a decade. What is the standard for HOF?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He'll be in my HOF.

The NFL HOF is a farce. Look at the number of QBs they let in. It's clear they think for the most part WRs are just bums who run down the field and get manna from heaven delivered to them on a sliver plate. If I were a guy like Art Monk, I'd have worn my lack of selection as a badge of honor. I'd advise Holt to do the same if the voters are stupid enough to continue on this path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said yes.People that hang around forever and amass big numbers are called compilers. People that don't hang around forever and don't amass big numbers are directed to their career stats.Tory Holt was the best 2-3 WRs in the league for a large part of a decade. What is the standard for HOF?

Excluding the Seniors Committee nominations, there is a maximum of 5 guys going in each year. That doesn't leave a whole lot of room for the 2nd and 3rd best guys at each position - although it does happen quite frequently, and some positions get longer looks than others, it is by no means a sure thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He'll be in my HOF.The NFL HOF is a farce. Look at the number of QBs they let in. It's clear they think for the most part WRs are just bums who run down the field and get manna from heaven delivered to them on a sliver plate. If I were a guy like Art Monk, I'd have worn my lack of selection as a badge of honor. I'd advise Holt to do the same if the voters are stupid enough to continue on this path.

For modern era players, there are 23 QBs, 25 HB/FBs, 19 WRs, 7 TEs, 33 OL, 26 DL, 17 LBs, 19 DBs, and 1 K.4 more QBs than WRs. Given that QB is a much more difficult, much more respected, and much more high profile position, how can you really complain about that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said yes.People that hang around forever and amass big numbers are called compilers. People that don't hang around forever and don't amass big numbers are directed to their career stats.Tory Holt was the best 2-3 WRs in the league for a large part of a decade. What is the standard for HOF?

Excluding the Seniors Committee nominations, there is a maximum of 5 guys going in each year. That doesn't leave a whole lot of room for the 2nd and 3rd best guys at each position - although it does happen quite frequently, and some positions get longer looks than others, it is by no means a sure thing.
Sure it does.3 players per position, ~13 positions vs 10 years per career and 5 HOFers elected is plenty of room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He'll be in my HOF.The NFL HOF is a farce. Look at the number of QBs they let in. It's clear they think for the most part WRs are just bums who run down the field and get manna from heaven delivered to them on a sliver plate. If I were a guy like Art Monk, I'd have worn my lack of selection as a badge of honor. I'd advise Holt to do the same if the voters are stupid enough to continue on this path.

For modern era players, there are 23 QBs, 25 HB/FBs, 19 WRs, 7 TEs, 33 OL, 26 DL, 17 LBs, 19 DBs, and 1 K.4 more QBs than WRs. Given that QB is a much more difficult, much more respected, and much more high profile position, how can you really complain about that?

:goodposting:

Plus, there are no QBs likely to be elected in the next several years. Favre is the next one to become eligible, and the soonest he could be inducted is the 2014 class if he retires again after this season. The next ones after him are Brady and Manning... probably 10+ years from now.

Meanwhile, Rice, Brown, Carter, and maybe Reed will get in by the time Favre does... and Moss, Owens, Harrison, and maybe Bruce and Holt will get in by the time both Manning and Brady are in... meaning the QB-WR gap will be reversed over the next 10-15 years.

Edited by Just Win Baby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He'll be in my HOF.The NFL HOF is a farce. Look at the number of QBs they let in. It's clear they think for the most part WRs are just bums who run down the field and get manna from heaven delivered to them on a sliver plate. If I were a guy like Art Monk, I'd have worn my lack of selection as a badge of honor. I'd advise Holt to do the same if the voters are stupid enough to continue on this path.

For modern era players, there are 23 QBs, 25 HB/FBs, 19 WRs, 7 TEs, 33 OL, 26 DL, 17 LBs, 19 DBs, and 1 K.4 more QBs than WRs. Given that QB is a much more difficult, much more respected, and much more high profile position, how can you really complain about that?
So 21% of all offensive players in the HOF are QBs? You'd expect that number to be 9%. I think you've just confirmed my argument. The HYPE surrounding the QB position is so pervasive even the voters have bought in. I'll grant you that WRs aren't as screwed by this as OL are, but they're still screwed by it. When you let Jim Kelly in and keep Art Monk out for so long, there is a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He'll be in my HOF.The NFL HOF is a farce. Look at the number of QBs they let in. It's clear they think for the most part WRs are just bums who run down the field and get manna from heaven delivered to them on a sliver plate. If I were a guy like Art Monk, I'd have worn my lack of selection as a badge of honor. I'd advise Holt to do the same if the voters are stupid enough to continue on this path.

For modern era players, there are 23 QBs, 25 HB/FBs, 19 WRs, 7 TEs, 33 OL, 26 DL, 17 LBs, 19 DBs, and 1 K.4 more QBs than WRs. Given that QB is a much more difficult, much more respected, and much more high profile position, how can you really complain about that?
So 21% of all offensive players in the HOF are QBs? You'd expect that number to be 9%. I think you've just confirmed my argument. The HYPE surrounding the QB position is so pervasive even the voters have bought in. I'll grant you that WRs aren't as screwed by this as OL are, but they're still screwed by it. When you let Jim Kelly in and keep Art Monk out for so long, there is a problem.
18% of offensive players in the HOF are WRs. If you expect QBs to account for 9%, then I assume you'd believe that WRs should account for 18%, right?Seems spot-on to me. How are WRs being slighted here? Edited by Borat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.