gianmarco
Footballguy
I know, I know, we always get these threads calling the rankings out and asking for explanations. So, I'll go ahead and give the obligatory disclaimer of "this is not meant to call anyone out, but merely for discussion" as I think there's some things to discuss with both of these guys.
So, when I look at the FBG staff rankings, 5 out of 6 of them have Burress ranked higher than Holt in dynasty rankings. But, even aside from them, I've seen that taking place by others as well so it does seem to be the overriding opinion. I'd like to see if that is really the case and try to figure out why.
1. Talent--I don't know if this is really debatable. I'm not sure if anyone would argue that Burress is more talented than Holt, but I guess it's possible. If you do think so, I'd be curious to see what makes you think that.
2. Past production--Again, this one is definitely in favor of Holt. Burress had a career year last year scoring 175 pts in non-PPR scoring (matched his previous highest output from 2002). Holt has scored >175 in 6 of the last 8 yrs. Last year and 2002 were the only years that Burress has ever outscored Holt and it was only by 14 pts last year. Considering the state of the Rams offense last year and that it was Burress's highest output in his career (and still only by 14 pts), I think the odds are in favor of Holt to outproduce Burress based on past production.
3. Age--Well, Burress is younger, but only by 1 year. This is a plus for Burress, but not a significant one IMHO.
4. Injuries--This is probably where the sticking point is going to be. Yes, we all heard about Holt's knee last year. Yet, we also heard about Portis's knee and Moss's hamstring and NONE of those injuries held Holt or Portis or Moss out. I still read things about his knee even though there's really been no new news about it worsening that I know of. In fact, the last I read recently was that it has improved (shocking for a supposed degenerative condition). I truly think much more was made of that injury than probably needed to be and it has stuck. I'm actually glad about that as it has caused his value to fall making him a relatively cheap acquisition for his production.
The thing is, this knee injury kept him out of ZERO games last year and he was still able to put up a 93/1189/7 season. Holt has missed 2 games his entire career (both in 2005), playing in all 16 games in 8 of his 9 years in the league. Of course, during that time, he's had 1188+ yds for the last EIGHT years IN A ROW. He's scored 7+ TDs in 7 of the last 9 yrs. And he's had 91+ catches for the last 6 yrs in a row (and 81 and 82 the 2 before that). Essentially, he's $ in the bank.
Burress, OTOH, has missed more games and appeared on the injury report far more often than Holt has. He's had nagging back and ankle injuries that have actually held back his production on the field. He's still produced pretty well over the last few years, but he is far from the epitome of health. I've owned him before and he can be a frustrating player to own when you're checking Sunday mornings to see if he's going to play or be limited.
5. Situation--This one is up for debate, but I don't think there's anything exceptional or worrisome about either situation. Holt's should improve significantly from last year as the O-line is healthy and improved, Bulger should be healthy, and if SJax actually plays, should be far more balanced. Even as dreadful as the Rams were last year, Holt still put up a pretty impressive year. It will be interesting to see what the loss of Bruce does, but I don't know if it's something to be overly concerned about. Likewise, Burress is in a pretty stable situation on a decent offense where he is a big red-zone threat. I'm not sure there is a clear favorite here, but some discussion on this would probably be helpful.
Bottomline, I don't know what exactly would make someone prefer Burress over Holt. I can only assume that it's the knee issue that has some worried, but if that were the case, I don't see why he wouldn't be even lower than he is. Otherwise, I just don't understand the difference. Granted, we're only talking about a couple spots difference, but I think some discussion on these two seemingly closely ranked players would be helpful in deciphering why one might be better than the other and what to expect over the next 2-3 yrs. For me, the upside Holt brings (potential top 5 #'s) is higher than Burress and his floor is probably higher as well.
So, this isn't a "you're crazy for putting Burress over Holt", but more asking why.
ETA--"The Associated Press reports St. Louis Rams WR Torry Holt (knee) said his knee is improving through rest and rehab during the offseason. "It is a lot better than it was last year at this time, which is good," Holt said. "That is promising for me."
So, when I look at the FBG staff rankings, 5 out of 6 of them have Burress ranked higher than Holt in dynasty rankings. But, even aside from them, I've seen that taking place by others as well so it does seem to be the overriding opinion. I'd like to see if that is really the case and try to figure out why.
1. Talent--I don't know if this is really debatable. I'm not sure if anyone would argue that Burress is more talented than Holt, but I guess it's possible. If you do think so, I'd be curious to see what makes you think that.
2. Past production--Again, this one is definitely in favor of Holt. Burress had a career year last year scoring 175 pts in non-PPR scoring (matched his previous highest output from 2002). Holt has scored >175 in 6 of the last 8 yrs. Last year and 2002 were the only years that Burress has ever outscored Holt and it was only by 14 pts last year. Considering the state of the Rams offense last year and that it was Burress's highest output in his career (and still only by 14 pts), I think the odds are in favor of Holt to outproduce Burress based on past production.
3. Age--Well, Burress is younger, but only by 1 year. This is a plus for Burress, but not a significant one IMHO.
4. Injuries--This is probably where the sticking point is going to be. Yes, we all heard about Holt's knee last year. Yet, we also heard about Portis's knee and Moss's hamstring and NONE of those injuries held Holt or Portis or Moss out. I still read things about his knee even though there's really been no new news about it worsening that I know of. In fact, the last I read recently was that it has improved (shocking for a supposed degenerative condition). I truly think much more was made of that injury than probably needed to be and it has stuck. I'm actually glad about that as it has caused his value to fall making him a relatively cheap acquisition for his production.
The thing is, this knee injury kept him out of ZERO games last year and he was still able to put up a 93/1189/7 season. Holt has missed 2 games his entire career (both in 2005), playing in all 16 games in 8 of his 9 years in the league. Of course, during that time, he's had 1188+ yds for the last EIGHT years IN A ROW. He's scored 7+ TDs in 7 of the last 9 yrs. And he's had 91+ catches for the last 6 yrs in a row (and 81 and 82 the 2 before that). Essentially, he's $ in the bank.
Burress, OTOH, has missed more games and appeared on the injury report far more often than Holt has. He's had nagging back and ankle injuries that have actually held back his production on the field. He's still produced pretty well over the last few years, but he is far from the epitome of health. I've owned him before and he can be a frustrating player to own when you're checking Sunday mornings to see if he's going to play or be limited.
5. Situation--This one is up for debate, but I don't think there's anything exceptional or worrisome about either situation. Holt's should improve significantly from last year as the O-line is healthy and improved, Bulger should be healthy, and if SJax actually plays, should be far more balanced. Even as dreadful as the Rams were last year, Holt still put up a pretty impressive year. It will be interesting to see what the loss of Bruce does, but I don't know if it's something to be overly concerned about. Likewise, Burress is in a pretty stable situation on a decent offense where he is a big red-zone threat. I'm not sure there is a clear favorite here, but some discussion on this would probably be helpful.
Bottomline, I don't know what exactly would make someone prefer Burress over Holt. I can only assume that it's the knee issue that has some worried, but if that were the case, I don't see why he wouldn't be even lower than he is. Otherwise, I just don't understand the difference. Granted, we're only talking about a couple spots difference, but I think some discussion on these two seemingly closely ranked players would be helpful in deciphering why one might be better than the other and what to expect over the next 2-3 yrs. For me, the upside Holt brings (potential top 5 #'s) is higher than Burress and his floor is probably higher as well.
So, this isn't a "you're crazy for putting Burress over Holt", but more asking why.
ETA--"The Associated Press reports St. Louis Rams WR Torry Holt (knee) said his knee is improving through rest and rehab during the offseason. "It is a lot better than it was last year at this time, which is good," Holt said. "That is promising for me."
Last edited by a moderator:
)
Holt is older, the Line is old , Bulger is old, Green is one hit away from brain damage, and their #2 WR now plays for SF..I don't want to knock Holt, he is a great WR, but only three times in his career has he scored double digit TDs, during that career, he's also caught 7 or fewer TDs per year, during five different seasons.not exactly a T.O. type WR, he's s good stat compiling 90+ catch , 1400 yard guy, but if the TD's don't come with it, you're overpaying for the dude when you know you can get a Welker type ,much later on in the draft..Wr's that catch 90+ balls are dime-a-dozen.might not be the same guy doing it every year, but if you know who to look for, you can hand-pick these WR's either off the waiver wire or at the draft, for a much cheaper price than Holt..relative to his ADP, I think he's a tad overrated..
Holt is older, the Line is old , Bulger is old, Green is one hit away from brain damage, and their #2 WR now plays for SF..I don't want to knock Holt, he is a great WR, but only three times in his career has he scored double digit TDs, during that career, he's also caught 7 or fewer TDs per year, during five different seasons.not exactly a T.O. type WR, he's s good stat compiling 90+ catch , 1400 yard guy, but if the TD's don't come with it, you're overpaying for the dude when you know you can get a Welker type ,much later on in the draft..Wr's that catch 90+ balls are dime-a-dozen.might not be the same guy doing it every year, but if you know who to look for, you can hand-pick these WR's either off the waiver wire or at the draft, for a much cheaper price than Holt..relative to his ADP, I think he's a tad overrated..
