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

[Tau837]

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).

 

[Tau837]

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.

 

[Tau837]

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

 

[Ghost Rider]

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.

 

[Tau837]

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.

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 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.

 

[Ghost Rider]

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.

 

[Tau837]

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.

 

[Ghost Rider]

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.

 

[kaa]

Holt is a lock.

 

[dutch]

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.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

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.

 

[nashua55]

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.

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.

 

[zdaddy]

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.

 

[Ilov80s]

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.

 

[Tau837]

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.

 

[Tau837]

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.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

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

 

[Tau837]

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.

 

[MarshallRob]

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.

 

[JTM]

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...

 

[Borat]

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.

 

[Tau837]

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.

 

[phthalatemagic]

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?

 

[Jimmy James]

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.

 

[Borat]

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.

 

[Borat]

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?

 

[phthalatemagic]

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.

 

[Tau837]

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?

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.

 

[Jimmy James]

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.

 

[Borat]

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?

 

[Jimmy James]

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?

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 hte next 10-15 years.

No, the gap won't be reversed. You'd expect something like twice the number of WRs as QBs, but we're not close to that. Beyond that, I wouldn't put it past the voters to find a way to put more QBs in the HOF. Gannon? Bledsoe? Plummer? Brunell? McNair? It seems ridiculous, but I wouldn't put it past the HOF given their past conduct.

 

[Jimmy James]

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?

I'd actually expect more like 20-22%, accounting for the 2.x average number of WRs on the field (3 and 4 receiver sets). It's in comparison to QBs that the WRs are getting hosed the most, though. That goes for every other position on the field, of course.

 

[Borat]

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?

I'd actually expect more like 20-22%, accounting for the 2.x average number of WRs on the field (3 and 4 receiver sets). It's in comparison to QBs that the WRs are getting hosed the most, though. That goes for every other position on the field, of course.

I think you have some very... "interesting" points of view on this subject.

 

[Jimmy James]

I think you have some very... "interesting" points of view on this subject.

What you're saying is that I don't buy into the hype generated by the NFL, where they've found the whitest and most protected group of players to use as the face of their game because white folks have more money to buy NFL stuff and because the lower amount of turnover allows people to identify with these players more.I get why fans love their QBs. I quite simply just expect more from supposedly knowledgeable sportswriters who vote on the HOF.

 

[Tau837]

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.

Over the next 10 years, up to 50 non senior nominations can get in. Strong candidates to be in that 50 include the following:

QB - Favre

RB - Emmitt, Faulk, Martin, Bettis, Tomlinson (assuming LT retires within the next 5 years)

WR - Rice, Brown, Carter, Harrison, Owens

TE - Sharpe, Gonzalez

OL - McDaniel, Allen, Pace, Ogden, Walter Jones, Shields, Roaf

DL - Bruce Smith, Strahan, Sapp

LB - Brooks, Lewis, Seau, Derrick Thomas

DB - Deion, Rod Woodson, Aeneas Williams

Coaches - Parcells

Contributors - Tagliabue

That's only 32. So there is room for 18 more guys I didn't name... like Bruce, Reed, Rodney Harrison, Dent, and several others. Plenty of room.

 

[Tau837]

No, the gap won't be reversed. You'd expect something like twice the number of WRs as QBs, but we're not close to that.

Maybe you would expect that, but I wouldn't. As a position, WR does not have the same impact on the game as QB. Frankly, it's not that close. The number of HOFers by position does not need to mimic the ratio of starters.

Beyond that, I wouldn't put it past the voters to find a way to put more QBs in the HOF. Gannon? Bledsoe? Plummer? Brunell? McNair? It seems ridiculous, but I wouldn't put it past the HOF given their past conduct.

Absolutely not. I think you are way off on most of your opinions on this subject.

 

[Tau837]

I think you have some very... "interesting" points of view on this subject.

What you're saying is that I don't buy into the hype generated by the NFL, where they've found the whitest and most protected group of players to use as the face of their game because white folks have more money to buy NFL stuff and because the lower amount of turnover allows people to identify with these players more.I get why fans love their QBs. I quite simply just expect more from supposedly knowledgeable sportswriters who vote on the HOF.

 

[Borat]

I think you have some very... "interesting" points of view on this subject.

What you're saying is that I don't buy into the hype generated by the NFL, where they've found the whitest and most protected group of players to use as the face of their game because white folks have more money to buy NFL stuff and because the lower amount of turnover allows people to identify with these players more.I get why fans love their QBs. I quite simply just expect more from supposedly knowledgeable sportswriters who vote on the HOF.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

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 receptionsOnly WR in NFL history to have 6 consecutive seasons of at least 1300 receiving yardsOnly WR besides Rice in NFL history to have 9 consecutive seasons of at least 1000 receiving yardsOnly WR besides Harrison in NFL history to have 2 seasons with at least 1600 receiving yardsFastest player in NFL history to reach 10,000 receiving yardsFastest player in NFL history to reach 11,000 receiving yardsPro Bowl selection in 7 of 8 seasons prior to this year and in 7 of 9 seasons overall prior to this yearAs for his standing relative to his peers, consider the following.Harrison entered the NFL in 1996Owens entered the NFL in 1996Moss entered the NFL in 1998All 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 737Receiving yards:#1 Holt 12153#2 Harrison 11736#3 Moss 11351#4 Owens 10948Receiving TDs:#1 Moss 111#2 Owens 108#3 Harrison 105#4 Holt 72His standing relative to those other three proves that he is in the same tier and is not a compiler.

Unfortunately, the final tally won't just cap the consideration at 1999 for the other guys. I'm suprised Holt's numbers weren't more stark, given -T.O.'s missing half season fiasco in Philly-Moss's lost run in Oakland-Harrison, at age 35, missing his first signifcant time, and losing 10 games to injury last yearHe's a tier below these guys.You scoffed earlier at comparing Chad Johnson to Holt, but look at the digits from Chad's first year as a starter in 2002, they have pretty much the same number of yards and TDs. Holt has 50 more catches or so. So either the whole body of work is part of a comparison or its not and in that respect, you'd have to do that which is obvious and slot him outside of those guys. Over the same period, Hines Ward has more TDs and more catches than these two. Again, we've established that he's not part of the big three. And he's really not that far removed from the next two. Gun to my head, starting a team, I'd take Holt over Chad and Hines in that time, but there can be very convincing arguments for either one of the other guys. You can make no convincing arguments that Holt should push the big 3 to a big 4.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

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...

Warner's an interesting case. If he ever got the Cards, who have a heck of a shot at the 2 seed in the NFC into the Bowl and wins, I think he goes into the Hall.I think the perception for him was that he was a system QB, given the ability of interchangable parts to have occasional and extended success in St. Louis(Candidate, Jaime Martin, Bulger). Warner played hurt and it cost him his job in St. Louis, was a gentleman and a great guy in tutoring Eli in NY and did the same for Leinart in zona, when low and behold his talent dictated he go back in the lineup. He's an easy guy to root for and I'd dismissed his hall chances and it'll be intersting to know what history he writes in these final pages.Really, if Steve Young is in with one ring, Warner belongs in.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

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?

I've said my piece on him being arguably a top 4 WR in his time, but I think we can all agree he's not in the top 2-3.And that can be dramatic.As much as anything, his canidacy reminds me of Rafel Palemiero in baseball. Raffy, before the roid stuff clouded things, put together some fantastic numbers that from the outside looking in are quite impressive. 3000 hits, almost 600 HR. And a record he held when he retired, I believe, was the most consecutive 30 HR, 100 RBI seasons. The sterioids in his case make it easy to keep him out of the hall but most baseball people were seriously prepared to debate his standing. Why? Because of the other outsanding competition at 1b in his era. Raffy only had 3 top 10 MVP finishes, no wins and made 4 all star teams in 20 years. He wasn't among the best at his position when he played, and any way you color statistical oddity in history, you should simply trust your eyes and your judgement in the time you watched these guys. Thats why we vote instead of just having enshrinement attached on a clear cut basis to certain stastical plateaus. Holt, like Raffy, are fine players that can play on my team any time, but given the quality of the company in both of their eras, they should not go into the hall.

 

[Native]

My only issue is that I dont like when too many players from one generation and one position are inducted into the hall. Here are the WR's from Holt's generation who are already considered "locks".

1) Moss

2) Owens

3) Harrison

When you throw in guys like Cris Carter and Tim Brown, whose careers overlapped with Holt's, thats a LOT of guys from one generation to be inducted into the Hall of Fame. At some point you simply have to say - he wasnt one of the top five during his prime, therefore he doesnt merit a vote. (and for the record, Id pick Holt over Brown but thats the correct metric to use when discussing this subject). Too many players from one position robs players at other positions who were the best during THEIR prime.

 

[Tau837]

You scoffed earlier at comparing Chad Johnson to Holt, but look at the digits from Chad's first year as a starter in 2002, they have pretty much the same number of yards and TDs. Holt has 50 more catches or so. So either the whole body of work is part of a comparison or its not and in that respect, you'd have to do that which is obvious and slot him outside of those guys. Over the same period, Hines Ward has more TDs and more catches than these two. Again, we've established that he's not part of the big three. And he's really not that far removed from the next two. Gun to my head, starting a team, I'd take Holt over Chad and Hines in that time, but there can be very convincing arguments for either one of the other guys. You can make no convincing arguments that Holt should push the big 3 to a big 4.

Since 2002:

Holt 622 receptions

Johnson 568 receptions

Ward 533 receptions

Holt 8423 receiving yards

Johnson 8387 receiving yards

Ward 6593 receiving yards

Ward 55 receiving TDs

Holt 54 receiving TDs

Johnson 52 receiving TDs

I'm not sure why you have tried to lump Ward into this. He is not close to the others overall. He has never been 1st team All Pro and has made 4 Pro Bowls.

It is true that Johnson is very close to Holt since 2002. But what I posted before included Holt's entire career. You are conveniently ignoring Chad's rookie season. And you are ignoring 4 seasons for Ward by starting in 2002.

And as you said I did comparing Holt to Moss, Harrison, and Owens, you are ignoring 3 of Holt's fine seasons in this comparison.

The gap between Holt and Moss/Owens/Harrison is smaller than the gap between Holt and Johnson/Ward.

 

[Tau837]

My only issue is that I dont like when too many players from one generation and one position are inducted into the hall. Whats more telling is the number of WR's from his generation who are already considered "locks".1) Moss2) Owens3) HarrisonWhen you throw in guys like Cris Carter and Tim Brown, whose careers overlapped with Holt's, thats a LOT of guys from one generation to be inducted into the Hall of Fame. At some point you simply have to say - he wasnt one of the top five during his prime, therefore he doesnt merit a vote. (and for the record, Id pick Holt over Brown but thats the correct metric to use when discussing this subject). Too many players from one position robs players at other positions who were the best during THEIR prime.

Your post doesn't make sense. Are you saying that Holt wasn't top 5 in his prime because he was behind Moss, Owens, Harrison, Carter, and Brown? Holt was much better than Carter and Brown while in his prime, since they were in the very end stage of their careers. And it is arguable that Holt's prime was better than both Carter's and Brown's... but they had much stronger longevity than Holt so far.

Or are you saying that because 5 HOF WRs were playing at some stage of their careers during Holt's prime, that's the limit...? If that is your logic, then consider 1999: Rice, Brown, Carter, Owens, Moss, Harrison, Holt, Bruce, and Irvin were all playing that year. Since Irvin is already in, apparently this logic would allow only 4 more to be inducted. Which 4?

Interestingly enough, while there are only 19 modern era WRs in the HOF, 8 of them were playing from 1965 to 1967, so there is a precedent for as many WRs as I listed above to overlap careers and still make the HOF.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

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...

Warner's an interesting case. If he ever got the Cards, who have a heck of a shot at the 2 seed in the NFC into the Bowl and wins, I think he goes into the Hall.I think the perception for him was that he was a system QB, given the ability of interchangable parts to have occasional and extended success in St. Louis(Candidate, Jaime Martin, Bulger). Warner played hurt and it cost him his job in St. Louis, was a gentleman and a great guy in tutoring Eli in NY and did the same for Leinart in zona, when low and behold his talent dictated he go back in the lineup. He's an easy guy to root for and I'd dismissed his hall chances and it'll be intersting to know what history he writes in these final pages.Really, if Steve Young is in with one ring, Warner belongs in.

Candidate?

Trung, who could blow up when slotted in for Faulk. Remember the waiver wire mad dash in those days when a St. Louis piece went down, because you could expect a reasonable rate of return by the backup.

 

[Tau837]

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?

I've said my piece on him being arguably a top 4 WR in his time, but I think we can all agree he's not in the top 2-3.And that can be dramatic.As much as anything, his canidacy reminds me of Rafel Palemiero in baseball. Raffy, before the roid stuff clouded things, put together some fantastic numbers that from the outside looking in are quite impressive. 3000 hits, almost 600 HR. And a record he held when he retired, I believe, was the most consecutive 30 HR, 100 RBI seasons. The sterioids in his case make it easy to keep him out of the hall but most baseball people were seriously prepared to debate his standing. Why? Because of the other outsanding competition at 1b in his era. Raffy only had 3 top 10 MVP finishes, no wins and made 4 all star teams in 20 years. He wasn't among the best at his position when he played, and any way you color statistical oddity in history, you should simply trust your eyes and your judgement in the time you watched these guys. Thats why we vote instead of just having enshrinement attached on a clear cut basis to certain stastical plateaus. Holt, like Raffy, are fine players that can play on my team any time, but given the quality of the company in both of their eras, they should not go into the hall.

If Palmeiro retired after 2004, he would have been elected to the HOF. He would have been 78 hits short of 3000, but well over 500 HRs. His low All Star games may have delayed his selection, but it would have been inevitable. He ranks very high on a lot of career lists, and he also won multiple Gold Gloves (though one was undeserved, since he inexplicably won it while playing DH).

Now, how many years he took steroids, and thus how much of his accomplishments can be attributed to steroids, is unknown. But he was caught in 2005. So had he retired in 2004, he would not have been caught, the Canseco allegation would have faded over time, and he would have been in.

All that said, I don't see him as a particularly good comparison to Holt, since the only reason he's not getting in is because he cheated, and that is not at all comparable to Holt. Palmeiro also achieved his success largely through compiling, though it is true that to a degree that is the nature of the baseball HOF a bit moreso than the Pro Football HOF IMO.

 

[Tau837]

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...

Warner's an interesting case. If he ever got the Cards, who have a heck of a shot at the 2 seed in the NFC into the Bowl and wins, I think he goes into the Hall.I think the perception for him was that he was a system QB, given the ability of interchangable parts to have occasional and extended success in St. Louis(Candidate, Jaime Martin, Bulger). Warner played hurt and it cost him his job in St. Louis, was a gentleman and a great guy in tutoring Eli in NY and did the same for Leinart in zona, when low and behold his talent dictated he go back in the lineup. He's an easy guy to root for and I'd dismissed his hall chances and it'll be intersting to know what history he writes in these final pages.Really, if Steve Young is in with one ring, Warner belongs in.

Candidate?

Trung, who could blow up when slotted in for Faulk. Remember the waiver wire mad dash in those days when a St. Louis piece went down, because you could expect a reasonable rate of return by the backup.

Canidate had 2 good games in 2001 and 4 or 5 solid games in 2003. I don't think that has any effect whatsoever on someone's assessment of Holt's career.

 

[Koya]

How many of you, watching Holt, saw a surefire HoFer? I certainly did it. Big numbers alone don't make a hall of famers. I never in Holt saw a big winner. I never saw someone who changed the game. I just saw a very productive player in a fantastic system that was, for most of his career, the 2nd best WR on the team, third offensive option and 4th best offensive player.

 

[MarshallRob]

How many of you, watching Holt, saw a surefire HoFer? I certainly did it. Big numbers alone don't make a hall of famers. I never in Holt saw a big winner. I never saw someone who changed the game. I just saw a very productive player in a fantastic system that was, for most of his career, the 2nd best WR on the team, third offensive option and 4th best offensive player.

You could be describing Art Monk there. Holt's been more productive than Monk but of course Monk didn't play in the "fantastic system" Holt did either.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

You scoffed earlier at comparing Chad Johnson to Holt, but look at the digits from Chad's first year as a starter in 2002, they have pretty much the same number of yards and TDs. Holt has 50 more catches or so. So either the whole body of work is part of a comparison or its not and in that respect, you'd have to do that which is obvious and slot him outside of those guys. Over the same period, Hines Ward has more TDs and more catches than these two. Again, we've established that he's not part of the big three. And he's really not that far removed from the next two. Gun to my head, starting a team, I'd take Holt over Chad and Hines in that time, but there can be very convincing arguments for either one of the other guys. You can make no convincing arguments that Holt should push the big 3 to a big 4.

Since 2002:Holt 622 receptionsJohnson 568 receptionsWard 533 receptionsHolt 8423 receiving yardsJohnson 8387 receiving yardsWard 6593 receiving yardsWard 55 receiving TDsHolt 54 receiving TDsJohnson 52 receiving TDsI'm not sure why you have tried to lump Ward into this. He is not close to the others overall. He has never been 1st team All Pro and has made 4 Pro Bowls.It is true that Johnson is very close to Holt since 2002. But what I posted before included Holt's entire career. You are conveniently ignoring Chad's rookie season. And you are ignoring 4 seasons for Ward by starting in 2002.And as you said I did comparing Holt to Moss, Harrison, and Owens, you are ignoring 3 of Holt's fine seasons in this comparison.The gap between Holt and Moss/Owens/Harrison is smaller than the gap between Holt and Johnson/Ward.

My math was off on Ward's yardage, forgive me. I was doing it in my head last night. On straight math alone, Hines Ward trails.There will be other intangible considerations for him, and again, for the record, to this point, I don't think he belongs in the Hall either, but he's one of 5 wides to win the Super Bowl MVP. Among them, Bieltnikoff and Swann are in the HOF, Rice will be there and of course the great, Deion Branch(?) is in. Were I to build a case for him, I'd start with that.