3rd round wr (1 Viewer)

[the_sig]

I would take Holmes and feel good about. Bruce leaving = more coverage. Holt is not the play maker he used to be, he is playing through pain. he will get plenty of targets but this is not "Greatest Show on Turf". Will Bulger stay healthy? The line needs to improve and Sjax needs to come back strong. Holt needs to stay on the field. Even in the best case, he is not as good nor is his offense as good as the one that allowed him to be one of the best in the game. Holmes at this point is just a better play maker. Pitt's offense has changed they have gone to more of a spread offense. the Offense is in good shape and in good hands. Holmes will get his looks.Holmes is young and there is reason to be optimistic that he can improve.

Ya but the line was AWFUL last year, Bulger didn't stay healthy, SJax didn't stay healthy, Holt had knee problems starting in training camp so essentially it was nearly a worst case scenario all around and he still finished 13th (to Holmes's 18th). Believe me, at this stage of the game Bruce wasn't taking any coverage off of Holt which is why he was cut. Their defense is going to be horrific so they will be throwing every game and he's the only reliable WR on the squad. On Pitt's side of the ball, I don't think Big Ben throws for 32 td's again and I think their line has taken a hit. I think Pitt was kind of a best case scenario passing wise last year while St. Louis was the worst case scenario and Holt still came out on top.

Agree w/ the bolded statement. I'm not sure where all the doom-n-gloom is coming from with the loss of Bruce. He was a great leader, and had a fantastic career with the Rams, but they have other weapons. I'm sure OC Al Saunders will be able to get production from Bennett at WR2, not to mention the Rams addressed WR at the draft with Avery & Burton. I don't know how much they'll contribute, but apparently the Rams feel like they'll be positive additions. McMicheal has shown he can be a 60-70 reception TE, and let's not forget that SJax had 90 receptions in 2006. I'm not saying all these avenues will pan out in 2008, but its obvious STL has other options in the passing game to replace the Bruce loss.

 

[the_sig]

I've never been a fan of extrapolating by saying 'if a guy was healthy' or 'if you don't count the one TD run the guy broke'...

Year end stats are what they are.

Year end stats are worthless unless you are just playing a total point league with no head to head play in a league that does not allow for substitutes. Points per game is how I judge a player.

My comment about stats 'being what they are' was more of a comment about my dislike of filling in data to make comparisons. In an earlier statement, you seemed to want to add in 3 games for Holmes to bolster your argument for him. I'm simply saying why? He didn't play those games, and we don't really know what his stats for those 3 games would have been if he'd played.

If points per game is how you evaluate guys, I'm not sure I see a convincing argument PRO Holmes based on their 2007 non-PPR regular season stats: Holt = 10.05 ppg, Holmes = 10.23 ppg. I think others have observed that 2007 was a 'perfect storm' scenario against the Rams.

No we don't know what Holmes would have done in those 3 games but it's safe to assume he would not have put up zero's which is basically what you calculating if YTD is your basis.As for the PPG stats for Holmes your numbers are wrong. Holmes had 143.9 fantasy points in 13 games which equals 11.06 which is a full point more than Holt on a lot less targets.

I'm not buying the perfect storm argument either. Using your own tool of YTD stats you would see Holt's numbers have declined 5 straight years and if you use PPG as I do his numbers have regressed 4 out of the last 5 years. I really like Torry Holt but all I see is a descending player.

I went back and checked, and my ppg figures aren't wrong ( I stated regular season btw 13/133 = 10.23 ppg). You are including 'week 18' to get your 143.9 points, which is fine, but then add the 14th game to divide by. 14/143.9 is 10.27, still not a convincing argument over Holt's 10.09.

 

[CBower4545]

I would take Holmes and feel good about. Bruce leaving = more coverage. Holt is not the play maker he used to be, he is playing through pain. he will get plenty of targets but this is not "Greatest Show on Turf". Will Bulger stay healthy? The line needs to improve and Sjax needs to come back strong. Holt needs to stay on the field. Even in the best case, he is not as good nor is his offense as good as the one that allowed him to be one of the best in the game. Holmes at this point is just a better play maker. Pitt's offense has changed they have gone to more of a spread offense. the Offense is in good shape and in good hands. Holmes will get his looks.Holmes is young and there is reason to be optimistic that he can improve.

Ya but the line was AWFUL last year, Bulger didn't stay healthy, SJax didn't stay healthy, Holt had knee problems starting in training camp so essentially it was nearly a worst case scenario all around and he still finished 13th (to Holmes's 18th). Believe me, at this stage of the game Bruce wasn't taking any coverage off of Holt which is why he was cut. Their defense is going to be horrific so they will be throwing every game and he's the only reliable WR on the squad. On Pitt's side of the ball, I don't think Big Ben throws for 32 td's again and I think their line has taken a hit. I think Pitt was kind of a best case scenario passing wise last year while St. Louis was the worst case scenario and Holt still came out on top.

So the Rams being a mess last year is a positive thing for Holt and Pitt having a very good year is a negative for Holmes. We seem to agree in 2007 the Rams were a mess and Pitt had a very good year. We just disagree on what that means.

 

[Banger]

I would take Holmes and feel good about. Bruce leaving = more coverage. Holt is not the play maker he used to be, he is playing through pain. he will get plenty of targets but this is not "Greatest Show on Turf". Will Bulger stay healthy? The line needs to improve and Sjax needs to come back strong. Holt needs to stay on the field. Even in the best case, he is not as good nor is his offense as good as the one that allowed him to be one of the best in the game. Holmes at this point is just a better play maker. Pitt's offense has changed they have gone to more of a spread offense. the Offense is in good shape and in good hands. Holmes will get his looks.Holmes is young and there is reason to be optimistic that he can improve.

Ya but the line was AWFUL last year, Bulger didn't stay healthy, SJax didn't stay healthy, Holt had knee problems starting in training camp so essentially it was nearly a worst case scenario all around and he still finished 13th (to Holmes's 18th). Believe me, at this stage of the game Bruce wasn't taking any coverage off of Holt which is why he was cut. Their defense is going to be horrific so they will be throwing every game and he's the only reliable WR on the squad. On Pitt's side of the ball, I don't think Big Ben throws for 32 td's again and I think their line has taken a hit. I think Pitt was kind of a best case scenario passing wise last year while St. Louis was the worst case scenario and Holt still came out on top.

So the Rams being a mess last year is a positive thing for Holt and Pitt having a very good year is a negative for Holmes. We seem to agree in 2007 the Rams were a mess and Pitt had a very good year. We just disagree on what that means.

It's a positive/negative if you don't think things will be that bad or good this year. Things change from year to year as you know and predicting FF values due to those changes are the difference between winning and losing.

 

[menobrown]

I've never been a fan of extrapolating by saying 'if a guy was healthy' or 'if you don't count the one TD run the guy broke'...

Year end stats are what they are.

Year end stats are worthless unless you are just playing a total point league with no head to head play in a league that does not allow for substitutes. Points per game is how I judge a player.

My comment about stats 'being what they are' was more of a comment about my dislike of filling in data to make comparisons. In an earlier statement, you seemed to want to add in 3 games for Holmes to bolster your argument for him. I'm simply saying why? He didn't play those games, and we don't really know what his stats for those 3 games would have been if he'd played.

If points per game is how you evaluate guys, I'm not sure I see a convincing argument PRO Holmes based on their 2007 non-PPR regular season stats: Holt = 10.05 ppg, Holmes = 10.23 ppg. I think others have observed that 2007 was a 'perfect storm' scenario against the Rams.

No we don't know what Holmes would have done in those 3 games but it's safe to assume he would not have put up zero's which is basically what you calculating if YTD is your basis.As for the PPG stats for Holmes your numbers are wrong. Holmes had 143.9 fantasy points in 13 games which equals 11.06 which is a full point more than Holt on a lot less targets.

I'm not buying the perfect storm argument either. Using your own tool of YTD stats you would see Holt's numbers have declined 5 straight years and if you use PPG as I do his numbers have regressed 4 out of the last 5 years. I really like Torry Holt but all I see is a descending player.

I went back and checked, and my ppg figures aren't wrong ( I stated regular season btw 13/133 = 10.23 ppg). You are including 'week 18' to get your 143.9 points, which is fine, but then add the 14th game to divide by. 14/143.9 is 10.27, still not a convincing argument over Holt's 10.09.

Dude, seriously you need to get your facts correct. I'm not counting week 18. Holmes regular season stats were 942 yards receiving, 8 TD's and 17 yards rushing. This equates to 94.2 + 48 + 1.7 = 143.9 which divided by 13 is 11.07. So again this is why I say Holmes outproduced Holt last season and on few attempts.

 

[the_sig]

Meno, you make a compelling argument.