If Torry Holt really is done...is he a Hall of Famer? (6 Viewers)

[Native]

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, 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.

1) Irvin was not part of the same generation as Holt/Moss just because their careers overlapped for one season. Ridiculous argument. 2) Not all of them SHOULD be Hall-worthy. Of the players you listed Id rank them like this:1) Rice2) Moss3) Irvin4) Owens5) Harrison6) Carter7) Holt8) Brown I have the top five as most deserving, with Carter eventually getting in. I never liked Brown much (didnt have a 1000 yard season until his seventh year in the league and had his best seasons when the Raiders were doormats). 3) The magic number doesnt have to be five. It could be three. Or Six. The point is, at some point you have to look at these guys within the context of their generational peers and make tough decisions over which guys are most worthy. And its not just true with WR's - the same logic applies to RB's, QB's etc.

 

[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 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.

OK, well there have been other threads to discuss Ward's case for the HOF. Suffice it to say, it is not a strong case, and he will not get in unless he accomplishes a lot more before he retires.

 

[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.

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.

Actually, although I was young at the time, when I saw Monk I DID see special, I DID see greatness. Greatness does not equate to flashy numbers. Monk was the best possession WR I had seen, and I believe that may be the most underated offense role in football. Holt is a very good WR who played on an amazing system. That said, while I do believe Monk deserved his induction, he was not a slam dunk.To me, Holt is simply a very good WR who played in an amazing system...

 

[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, 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.

1) Irvin was not part of the same generation as Holt/Moss just because their careers overlapped for one season. Ridiculous argument.

2) Not all of them SHOULD be Hall-worthy. Of the players you listed Id rank them like this:

1) Rice

2) Moss

3) Irvin

4) Owens

5) Harrison

6) Carter

7) Holt

8) Brown

I have the top five as most deserving, with Carter eventually getting in. I never liked Brown much (didnt have a 1000 yard season until his seventh year in the league and had his best seasons when the Raiders were doormats).

3) The magic number doesnt have to be five. It could be three. Or Six. The point is, at some point you have to look at these guys within the context of their generational peers and make tough decisions over which guys are most worthy. And its not just true with WR's - the same logic applies to RB's, QB's etc.

1) I wasn't making that argument. I was trying to understand your argument.

I think it is just as ridiculous to say that Brown and Carter are in Holt's "generation." Carter played 16 seasons, the last 4 of which overlapped with Holt's career. Brown played 17 seasons, the last 6 of which overlapped with Holt's career. They each played well more than half of their careers, including their prime years, before Holt entered the league. Holt will end up playing more than half of his career after they retired, assuming he plays to 2011 or later.

To consider the 8 players above as part of one generation means you are making a generation from 1987 to whenever these guys retire... probably 25 years. That sounds like two generations to me.

2) Brown had his first 1000 yard season in his 6th season... but that began a run of 9 straight. I certainly don't think it was his fault the Raiders were doormats when he was playing well.

3) Look at post 85. I think it might surprise you how much room there is for one position when that position has several worthy candidates over a couple generations. I didn't list all the receivers there, because they won't all need to get in within the next 10 years. Can you even fill up 50 HOF worthy players that deserve to get in within the next 10 years? Or would you perhaps advocate taking less than 50?

 

[Tau837]

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.

Actually, although I was young at the time, when I saw Monk I DID see special, I DID see greatness. Greatness does not equate to flashy numbers. Monk was the best possession WR I had seen, and I believe that may be the most underated offense role in football. Holt is a very good WR who played on an amazing system. That said, while I do believe Monk deserved his induction, he was not a slam dunk.To me, Holt is simply a very good WR who played in an amazing system...

If that is true, why haven't more WRs put up several straight seasons of 1300 yards? Or almost a decade straight of 1000 yard seasons? Or multiple 1600 yard seasons? Is Holt the only one that has been lucky enough to play in a great system? For example, why didn't Bruce do it, playing in the same system? Especially since Holt was "for most of his career, the 2nd best WR on the team"?

 

[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.

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.

Actually, although I was young at the time, when I saw Monk I DID see special, I DID see greatness. Greatness does not equate to flashy numbers. Monk was the best possession WR I had seen, and I believe that may be the most underated offense role in football. Holt is a very good WR who played on an amazing system. That said, while I do believe Monk deserved his induction, he was not a slam dunk.To me, Holt is simply a very good WR who played in an amazing system...

If that is true, why haven't more WRs put up several straight seasons of 1300 yards? Or almost a decade straight of 1000 yard seasons? Or multiple 1600 yard seasons? Is Holt the only one that has been lucky enough to play in a great system? For example, why didn't Bruce do it, playing in the same system? Especially since Holt was "for most of his career, the 2nd best WR on the team"?

More WRs havent put up those numbers because the game is vastly different today than even 15-20 years ago. Check the stats on 300 yard passing games now compared to even recent eras of football. They are not close. In fact, the passing numbers you see now, accross the board, are staggering in comparison.So yes, no WR who had the talent Holt had (he is a very very good WR) had the confluence of a passing league, a perfect system and the complete inability for the opposing team to focus on what was the third option on the team.Once again, to me its not about numbers... I see/saw a HoF player in Bruce. I never have in Holt.

 

[Tau837]

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.

Actually, although I was young at the time, when I saw Monk I DID see special, I DID see greatness. Greatness does not equate to flashy numbers. Monk was the best possession WR I had seen, and I believe that may be the most underated offense role in football. Holt is a very good WR who played on an amazing system. That said, while I do believe Monk deserved his induction, he was not a slam dunk.To me, Holt is simply a very good WR who played in an amazing system...

If that is true, why haven't more WRs put up several straight seasons of 1300 yards? Or almost a decade straight of 1000 yard seasons? Or multiple 1600 yard seasons? Is Holt the only one that has been lucky enough to play in a great system? For example, why didn't Bruce do it, playing in the same system? Especially since Holt was "for most of his career, the 2nd best WR on the team"?

More WRs havent put up those numbers because the game is vastly different today than even 15-20 years ago. Check the stats on 300 yard passing games now compared to even recent eras of football. They are not close. In fact, the passing numbers you see now, accross the board, are staggering in comparison.So yes, no WR who had the talent Holt had (he is a very very good WR) had the confluence of a passing league, a perfect system and the complete inability for the opposing team to focus on what was the third option on the team.Once again, to me its not about numbers... I see/saw a HoF player in Bruce. I never have in Holt.

LOL at calling Holt the third option on the team. Maybe for his first few seasons. Faulk began his decline in Holt's 4th season. Holt surpassed Bruce in his second season, though I agree it took defenses a while to catch on.

 

[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.

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.

Actually, although I was young at the time, when I saw Monk I DID see special, I DID see greatness. Greatness does not equate to flashy numbers. Monk was the best possession WR I had seen, and I believe that may be the most underated offense role in football. Holt is a very good WR who played on an amazing system. That said, while I do believe Monk deserved his induction, he was not a slam dunk.To me, Holt is simply a very good WR who played in an amazing system...

If that is true, why haven't more WRs put up several straight seasons of 1300 yards? Or almost a decade straight of 1000 yard seasons? Or multiple 1600 yard seasons? Is Holt the only one that has been lucky enough to play in a great system? For example, why didn't Bruce do it, playing in the same system? Especially since Holt was "for most of his career, the 2nd best WR on the team"?

More WRs havent put up those numbers because the game is vastly different today than even 15-20 years ago. Check the stats on 300 yard passing games now compared to even recent eras of football. They are not close. In fact, the passing numbers you see now, accross the board, are staggering in comparison.So yes, no WR who had the talent Holt had (he is a very very good WR) had the confluence of a passing league, a perfect system and the complete inability for the opposing team to focus on what was the third option on the team.Once again, to me its not about numbers... I see/saw a HoF player in Bruce. I never have in Holt.

LOL at calling Holt the third option on the team. Maybe for his first few seasons. Faulk began his decline in Holt's 4th season. Holt surpassed Bruce in his second season, though I agree it took defenses a while to catch on.

You are entitled to your opinion. If LOL with it. But my eyes told me otherwise... and maybe the fantasy message boards were calling Holt the number one, but he was not for some time - namely, until Bruce simply got too far up there in age. It's more than numbers that make a player, make an impact, make a HoFer.

 

[Tau837]

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.

Actually, although I was young at the time, when I saw Monk I DID see special, I DID see greatness. Greatness does not equate to flashy numbers. Monk was the best possession WR I had seen, and I believe that may be the most underated offense role in football. Holt is a very good WR who played on an amazing system. That said, while I do believe Monk deserved his induction, he was not a slam dunk.To me, Holt is simply a very good WR who played in an amazing system...

If that is true, why haven't more WRs put up several straight seasons of 1300 yards? Or almost a decade straight of 1000 yard seasons? Or multiple 1600 yard seasons? Is Holt the only one that has been lucky enough to play in a great system? For example, why didn't Bruce do it, playing in the same system? Especially since Holt was "for most of his career, the 2nd best WR on the team"?

More WRs havent put up those numbers because the game is vastly different today than even 15-20 years ago. Check the stats on 300 yard passing games now compared to even recent eras of football. They are not close. In fact, the passing numbers you see now, accross the board, are staggering in comparison.So yes, no WR who had the talent Holt had (he is a very very good WR) had the confluence of a passing league, a perfect system and the complete inability for the opposing team to focus on what was the third option on the team.Once again, to me its not about numbers... I see/saw a HoF player in Bruce. I never have in Holt.

LOL at calling Holt the third option on the team. Maybe for his first few seasons. Faulk began his decline in Holt's 4th season. Holt surpassed Bruce in his second season, though I agree it took defenses a while to catch on.

You are entitled to your opinion. If LOL with it. But my eyes told me otherwise... and maybe the fantasy message boards were calling Holt the number one, but he was not for some time - namely, until Bruce simply got too far up there in age. It's more than numbers that make a player, make an impact, make a HoFer.

I am basing my opinion on watching games as well.

 

[Native]

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, 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.

1) Irvin was not part of the same generation as Holt/Moss just because their careers overlapped for one season. Ridiculous argument. 2) Not all of them SHOULD be Hall-worthy. Of the players you listed Id rank them like this:1) Rice2) Moss3) Irvin4) Owens5) Harrison6) Carter7) Holt8) Brown I have the top five as most deserving, with Carter eventually getting in. I never liked Brown much (didnt have a 1000 yard season until his seventh year in the league and had his best seasons when the Raiders were doormats). 3) The magic number doesnt have to be five. It could be three. Or Six. The point is, at some point you have to look at these guys within the context of their generational peers and make tough decisions over which guys are most worthy. And its not just true with WR's - the same logic applies to RB's, QB's etc.

3) Look at post 85. I think it might surprise you how much room there is for one position when that position has several worthy candidates over a couple generations. I didn't list all the receivers there, because they won't all need to get in within the next 10 years. Can you even fill up 50 HOF worthy players that deserve to get in within the next 10 years? Or would you perhaps advocate taking less than 50?

I think this should be the central point of this discussion so in this case I agree with you. That would be an interesting discussion - trying to find 50 guys across 10 yrs that deserve to be inducted. I think it would be close.

 

[Tau837]

3) The magic number doesnt have to be five. It could be three. Or Six. The point is, at some point you have to look at these guys within the context of their generational peers and make tough decisions over which guys are most worthy. And its not just true with WR's - the same logic applies to RB's, QB's etc.

3) Look at post 85. I think it might surprise you how much room there is for one position when that position has several worthy candidates over a couple generations. I didn't list all the receivers there, because they won't all need to get in within the next 10 years. Can you even fill up 50 HOF worthy players that deserve to get in within the next 10 years? Or would you perhaps advocate taking less than 50?

I think this should be the central point of this discussion so in this case I agree with you. That would be an interesting discussion - trying to find 50 guys across 10 yrs that deserve to be inducted. I think it would be close.

Who Will Be In the Next 10 HOF Classes?

 

[Ghost Rider]

Now that Holt is officially retired, HOF or not?

 

[cstu]

From 2000-2007 he was right up there with Owens, Moss and Harrison stat-wise (more catches and yards, less TD's) and won a Super Bowl. I vote HOF'er.

 

[zed2283]

No.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

he's a maybe.

have to see how this era's WRs are treated by the hall. Dont seem like they reward pure numbers

 

[finito]

Just misses. Great career, not all time great.

 

[cvnpoka]

hilarious that hines ward get in over this guy. lol hof. lol sportswriters. lol fans.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

hines ward get in over this guy.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Leaning yes. Other than Moss, Harrison, Owens you can't name anyone else from that age bracket that deserves to be in over him.

 

[finito]

Leaning yes. Other than Moss, Harrison, Owens you can't name anyone else from that age bracket that deserves to be in over him.

Difficult for WRs to get in; I think only Moss, Harrison and Owens deserve to from that era. I might put Bruce in over Holt.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I think only Moss, Harrison and Owens deserve to from that era.

All 3 of those guys could also make the Hall of Shame.

 

[cstu]

Leaning yes. Other than Moss, Harrison, Owens you can't name anyone else from that age bracket that deserves to be in over him.

Difficult for WRs to get in; I think only Moss, Harrison and Owens deserve to from that era. I might put Bruce in over Holt.

Oh, c'mon.

 

[cstu]

Nobody caught more passes than Torry Holt from 2000 to 2007.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Leaning yes. Other than Moss, Harrison, Owens you can't name anyone else from that age bracket that deserves to be in over him.

Difficult for WRs to get in; I think only Moss, Harrison and Owens deserve to from that era. I might put Bruce in over Holt.

Oh, c'mon.

The guy is 3rd all-time in receiving yards. You really think that's a stretch? To me, Bruce has at least one advantage over Holt: he produced outside the GSOT with the second most receiving yards of all time.

 

[cstu]

Leaning yes. Other than Moss, Harrison, Owens you can't name anyone else from that age bracket that deserves to be in over him.

Difficult for WRs to get in; I think only Moss, Harrison and Owens deserve to from that era. I might put Bruce in over Holt.

Oh, c'mon.

The guy is 3rd all-time in receiving yards. You really think that's a stretch? To me, Bruce has at least one advantage over Holt: he produced outside the GSOT with the second most receiving yards of all time.

He played for 16 years and put up a lot of average seasons. He had 4 seasons over 1200 yards while Holt just missed doing it for 8 straight years. After Holt's 2nd year Bruce never outproduced him.

 

[cobalt_27]

Leaning yes. Other than Moss, Harrison, Owens you can't name anyone else from that age bracket that deserves to be in over him.

Difficult for WRs to get in; I think only Moss, Harrison and Owens deserve to from that era. I might put Bruce in over Holt.

Don't be ridiculous.

 

[finito]

Leaning yes. Other than Moss, Harrison, Owens you can't name anyone else from that age bracket that deserves to be in over him.

Difficult for WRs to get in; I think only Moss, Harrison and Owens deserve to from that era. I might put Bruce in over Holt.

Don't be ridiculous.

I don't feel I'm being ridiculous. Ike was every bit as good as Holt IMO, and had one of the great NFL seasons of all time for a WR with Chris Miller as his QB. Chris Miller.

 

[Ghost Rider]

The problem is that Holt and Bruce will almost cancel each other out, as you'll have some voters thinking Bruce was better, and vice versa, and as a result, I think both will have a hard time getting it, but as it stands, saying they are 4a and 4b of their generation behind Harrison, Owens and Moss seems more than reasonable.

 

[Abraham]

No. Not really that close IMO.

 

[Boston]

Real good player but from the eyeball-test angle I don't ever remember watching him and thinking I was watching one of the all-time greats...

 

[cstu]

Leaning yes. Other than Moss, Harrison, Owens you can't name anyone else from that age bracket that deserves to be in over him.

Difficult for WRs to get in; I think only Moss, Harrison and Owens deserve to from that era. I might put Bruce in over Holt.

Don't be ridiculous.

I don't feel I'm being ridiculous. Ike was every bit as good as Holt IMO, and had one of the great NFL seasons of all time for a WR with Chris Miller as his QB. Chris Miller.

It was Miller and Rypien and neither were that bad that year. As great of a year it was for Bruce he was 4th in catches, 2nd in yards and tied for 6th in TD's. He failed to make the Pro Bowl.

 

[sn0mm1s]

No, Brown and Carter have been sitting for years and both are better than Holt. Then, as others have mentioned you will have Moss, Harrison, Owens, Bruce and unfortunately Ward competing for votes. By that point, we might also see AJ, CJ, and Fitz surpassing many of Holt's numbers. Combine that with the fact that he was never a TD scorer (IMO the best way to judge WRs) and he is in the "just misses" crowd.

 

[Ghost Rider]

It was Miller and Rypien and neither were that bad that year. As great of a year it was for Bruce he was 4th in catches, 2nd in yards and tied for 6th in TD's. He failed to make the Pro Bowl.

That's only because Herman Moore, Michael Irvin and Cris Carter, all of whom were already established big time WRs, had monster seasons as well. Established players will almost always get the nod for the pro bowl over a breakout player when the numbers are pretty similar. For the record, the numbers of the four NFC pro bowl WRs that year and Bruce:Rice 122-1848-15Bruce 119 -1781-13Moore 123-1686-14Irvin 111-1603-10Carter 122-1371-17Four incredible seasons by five wide receivers, and one of them had to miss out. It was Bruce. But it is meaningless in the big picture when discussing his career.

 

[Ghost Rider]

No, Brown and Carter have been sitting for years and both are better than Holt. Then, as others have mentioned you will have Moss, Harrison, Owens, Bruce and unfortunately Ward competing for votes. By that point, we might also see AJ, CJ, and Fitz surpassing many of Holt's numbers. Combine that with the fact that he was never a TD scorer (IMO the best way to judge WRs) and he is in the "just misses" crowd.

The lack of TDs won't help his cause. The Rams inexplicably didn't throw to Holt in the red zone that much early in his career (with Faulk in his prime and Bruce being such a stud in close, they really didn't have to). Holt only had 23 touchdowns his first four seasons, but then caught 41 in his next four. At the same time, his YPC went down a little bit, so being thrown to in the red zone more helped his TDs, but hurt his YPC. But six straight seasons of 1300 yards is pretty unbelievable, especially when you consider that only two of them came when the Greatest Show on Turf was at its peak, so the "he benefited by playing in the GSOT offense" argument doesn't work, especially when Holt was one of the main reasons WHY the GSOT was so dominant.

 

[Chase Stuart]

No, Brown and Carter have been sitting for years and both are better than Holt. Then, as others have mentioned you will have Moss, Harrison, Owens, Bruce and unfortunately Ward competing for votes. By that point, we might also see AJ, CJ, and Fitz surpassing many of Holt's numbers. Combine that with the fact that he was never a TD scorer (IMO the best way to judge WRs) and he is in the "just misses" crowd.

The lack of TDs won't help his cause. The Rams inexplicably didn't throw to Holt in the red zone that much early in his career (with Faulk in his prime and Bruce being such a stud in close, they really didn't have to). Holt only had 23 touchdowns his first four seasons, but then caught 41 in his next four. At the same time, his YPC went down a little bit, so being thrown to in the red zone more helped his TDs, but hurt his YPC. But six straight seasons of 1300 yards is pretty unbelievable, especially when you consider that only two of them came when the Greatest Show on Turf was at its peak, so the "he benefited by playing in the GSOT offense" argument doesn't work, especially when Holt was one of the main reasons WHY the GSOT was so dominant.

Sure, the GSOT was at historically elite levels from '99 to '01, but it's not like it slowed down all that much. When you talk about those "other" four seasons, you mean '02 to '05. In those years, the Rams ranked in the top five in pass attempts and passing yards in each season. STL had the most pass attempts by a good margin over that time frame and the second most passing yards behind Manning's Colts: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/tgl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=combined&year_min=2002&year_max=2005&game_type=R&game_num_min=0&game_num_max=99&week_num_min=0&week_num_max=99&game_day_of_week=&game_location=&game_result=&overtime=&league_id=&team_id=&opp_id=&conference_game=&division_game=&tm_is_playoff=&opp_is_playoff=&tm_is_winning=&opp_is_winning=&tm_scored_first=&tm_led=&tm_trailed=&c1stat=&c1comp=gt&c1val=&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=pass_attWhen comparing a guy like Holt to Jimmy Smith, consider that from '00 to '05 -- Holt's elite six year stretch - STL had 3,552 pass attempts. From '96 to '02 -- Smith's best seven year stretch -- the Jaguars had 3600 pass attempts. So Holt basically got an entire extra season during his prime due to the GSOT. It's certainly not an insignificant factor.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Rice 122-1848-15

:splooge:I so loved owning Rice ('87-'96) I had a framed picture of him in my garage... and I hated the 49ers so very much.

 

[cstu]

No, Brown and Carter have been sitting for years and both are better than Holt. Then, as others have mentioned you will have Moss, Harrison, Owens, Bruce and unfortunately Ward competing for votes. By that point, we might also see AJ, CJ, and Fitz surpassing many of Holt's numbers. Combine that with the fact that he was never a TD scorer (IMO the best way to judge WRs) and he is in the "just misses" crowd.

IMO there's no question Brown and Carter should get in. It may take awhile but the best case for Holt deserving to be in the HOF is James Lofton.

 

[Nero]

I think Holt is in. Moss, Owens, and Harrison were the only superior players in his era. Holt has 7 pro bowls and an all pro season. The other contenders of his era, Ward, Bruce and Jimmy Smith only show about 4 pro bowls each. Holt is the cut off. I don't understand why Martz's offense is held against Holt as if anyone could have stepped in and did what he did.

 

[Synesthesia]

I agree that Moss/Harrison/Owens get in, and Bruce/Smith/Smith/Ward stay out (or, at least, deserve to- Ward might sneak in on Steelers hype and that ridiculous "best blocking WR in history" rep). Holt is the swing candidate. I'd like to say he's a HOF lock, but voters are usually tough on WRs. Still, if I had to guess, I'd say that it takes a while but he eventually manages to reunite with Warner and Faulk in the Hall of Fame.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

(or, at least, deserve to- Ward might sneak in on Steelers hype and that ridiculous "best blocking WR in history" rep).

derp derp

 

[Tau837]

I think Holt vs. Ward is an interesting comparison.

Holt finished with 920/13382/74 in 173 regular season games.

Ward finished with 1000/12083/85 in 217 games.

Ward is ahead of Holt in receptions and receiving TDs, but that is only because he played in 44 more games.

Holt is currently #10 all time in receiving yards, and Ward is currently #8 all time in receptions, but both of them will almost certainly be out of the top 10 by the time they become HOF eligible. However, Holt is currently #3 all time in receiving yards per game, behind Andre Johnson and Fitzgerald and just ahead of Calvin Johnson. So Holt could drop to #4, but he could also move up the ranking to #1 or #2. This is a pretty impressive stat that will carry a lot of weight for him IMO.

Holt was 1st team All Pro once and 2nd team All Pro once and made 7 Pro Bowls. Ward was never 1st team All Pro but was 2nd team All Pro 3 times and made 4 Pro Bowls. Holt made the 2000s All Decade team. Ward won the 2005 Super Bowl MVP.

Per his Wikipedia page, Holt holds some NFL records:

- Consecutive seasons with at least 1,300 yards receiving (6)

- Consecutive seasons with 90+ receptions (6)

- Torry Holt along with Marvin Harrison are the only receivers with two 1,600 yard receiving seasons

- Highest Average Gain, Game (3 receptions +), 63.00, Torry Holt, September 24, 2000

- Reached 10,000 (116 games) and 11,000 (130 games) career receiving yards faster than any other player

- Super Bowl rookie record for receptions (7) and receiving yards (109) in 1999

- Receptions in a single decade (868, 2000–2009)

- Receiving yards in a single decade (12,594, 2000–2009)

I'm not aware that Ward holds any NFL records. Holt played in 2 Super Bowls and he has one ring. Ward played in 3 Super Bowls and he has two rings. Ward's postseason numbers (88/1181/10 in 18 games) are better than Holt's, although Holt's aren't bad (47/630/4 in 10 games). Ward played on nearly twice as many playoff teams, so he had more postseason opportunities.

Up to this point of the comparison, IMO it appears Holt has a healthy edge. So the question IMO becomes whether or not Ward will get enough credit for the intangibles and blocking that it will push him ahead of Holt. I would personally rank Holt higher, but I could see voters putting Ward higher.

 

[Pots]

Holt = Bruce >>>> Ward

 

[Synesthesia]

(or, at least, deserve to- Ward might sneak in on Steelers hype and that ridiculous "best blocking WR in history" rep).

derp derp

It really is ridiculous, although I wouldn't expect a Steelers fan to agree. Want me to illustrate how ridiculous it is? Easy- name the 10 best blocking receivers of all time. Name the 10 best blocking receivers in the NFL today. Name the 2nd best blocking receiver of Hines Ward's era. Take the top 10 receivers in terms of career yardage, and tell me which of them are good blockers, which are average blockers, and which are bad blockers. Come on, anyone want to try to take a shot at any of these? Of course not- because 98% of fans don't know a single thing about blocking by WRs- what makes someone good at it, who is good at it, how players compare to their peers, anything. And yet every single one of those fans will gladly chime in that Hines Ward is the best blocking receiver of all time, despite being woefully unqualified to offer any such opinion. They can't even meaningfully compare him to any other receivers playing today, to say nothing about guys playing in the 70s, or the 50s, or the 30s. Is Hines Ward a great blocker? Absolutely. Is he better than Keyshawn Johnson or Rod Smith, two other crushing blockers from his era? I don't know... But then again, neither does most anyone around these parts. It's just that Ward at one point earned a "devastating blocker" rep, and the echo chamber repeated it and amplified it, (driven in large part by Steelers fans looking for reasons to elevate Ward to the level of his elite peers, and by people wistful for generations gone by), and now it's reached the point where it's just repeated and accepted without any critical thought.Even if we accept the premise, though, and blindly agree that Ward is the best blocking receiver of all time... so what? Someone around here (Chase?) once asked an interesting question in one of these Ward discussions. How many yards is the best blocking receiver of all time worth compared to just an average blocker? If a team rushes for 2000 yards, how many of those yards get credited to the line, how many to the runner, how many to the QB (play fakes, etc), how many to the TEs, and how many to the WRs? Say the line gets 50% and the back gets 25%, that leaves 500 yards left to divide up between 3-4 receivers, 1-2 TEs, a fullback, and the QB. So Ward would be worth, what, 100 yards? And an average WR might be worth 40 or 50? Are those 50 extra yards really enough padding on Ward's resume to get him in the hall? Or would you want to put him in just to reward the blocking category? And if so, what's next? The best tackling punter? The best passing kicker? The best play-faking QB? The best pass-rushing CB?

 

[Pots]

(or, at least, deserve to- Ward might sneak in on Steelers hype and that ridiculous "best blocking WR in history" rep).

derp derp

It really is ridiculous, although I wouldn't expect a Steelers fan to agree. Want me to illustrate how ridiculous it is? Easy- name the 10 best blocking receivers of all time. Name the 10 best blocking receivers in the NFL today. Name the 2nd best blocking receiver of Hines Ward's era. Take the top 10 receivers in terms of career yardage, and tell me which of them are good blockers, which are average blockers, and which are bad blockers. Come on, anyone want to try to take a shot at any of these? Of course not- because 98% of fans don't know a single thing about blocking by WRs- what makes someone good at it, who is good at it, how players compare to their peers, anything. And yet every single one of those fans will gladly chime in that Hines Ward is the best blocking receiver of all time, despite being woefully unqualified to offer any such opinion. They can't even meaningfully compare him to any other receivers playing today, to say nothing about guys playing in the 70s, or the 50s, or the 30s. Is Hines Ward a great blocker? Absolutely. Is he better than Keyshawn Johnson or Rod Smith, two other crushing blockers from his era? I don't know... But then again, neither does most anyone around these parts. It's just that Ward at one point earned a "devastating blocker" rep, and the echo chamber repeated it and amplified it, (driven in large part by Steelers fans looking for reasons to elevate Ward to the level of his elite peers, and by people wistful for generations gone by), and now it's reached the point where it's just repeated and accepted without any critical thought.Even if we accept the premise, though, and blindly agree that Ward is the best blocking receiver of all time... so what? Someone around here (Chase?) once asked an interesting question in one of these Ward discussions. How many yards is the best blocking receiver of all time worth compared to just an average blocker? If a team rushes for 2000 yards, how many of those yards get credited to the line, how many to the runner, how many to the QB (play fakes, etc), how many to the TEs, and how many to the WRs? Say the line gets 50% and the back gets 25%, that leaves 500 yards left to divide up between 3-4 receivers, 1-2 TEs, a fullback, and the QB. So Ward would be worth, what, 100 yards? And an average WR might be worth 40 or 50? Are those 50 extra yards really enough padding on Ward's resume to get him in the hall? Or would you want to put him in just to reward the blocking category? And if so, what's next? The best tackling punter? The best passing kicker? The best play-faking QB? The best pass-rushing CB?

 

[Tau837]

Want me to illustrate how ridiculous it is? Easy- name the 10 best blocking receivers of all time. Name the 10 best blocking receivers in the NFL today. Name the 2nd best blocking receiver of Hines Ward's era. Take the top 10 receivers in terms of career yardage, and tell me which of them are good blockers, which are average blockers, and which are bad blockers. Come on, anyone want to try to take a shot at any of these? Of course not- because 98% of fans don't know a single thing about blocking by WRs- what makes someone good at it, who is good at it, how players compare to their peers, anything. And yet every single one of those fans will gladly chime in that Hines Ward is the best blocking receiver of all time, despite being woefully unqualified to offer any such opinion. They can't even meaningfully compare him to any other receivers playing today, to say nothing about guys playing in the 70s, or the 50s, or the 30s. Is Hines Ward a great blocker? Absolutely. Is he better than Keyshawn Johnson or Rod Smith, two other crushing blockers from his era? I don't know... But then again, neither does most anyone around these parts. It's just that Ward at one point earned a "devastating blocker" rep, and the echo chamber repeated it and amplified it, (driven in large part by Steelers fans looking for reasons to elevate Ward to the level of his elite peers, and by people wistful for generations gone by), and now it's reached the point where it's just repeated and accepted without any critical thought.

Even if we accept the premise, though, and blindly agree that Ward is the best blocking receiver of all time... so what? Someone around here (Chase?) once asked an interesting question in one of these Ward discussions. How many yards is the best blocking receiver of all time worth compared to just an average blocker? If a team rushes for 2000 yards, how many of those yards get credited to the line, how many to the runner, how many to the QB (play fakes, etc), how many to the TEs, and how many to the WRs? Say the line gets 50% and the back gets 25%, that leaves 500 yards left to divide up between 3-4 receivers, 1-2 TEs, a fullback, and the QB. So Ward would be worth, what, 100 yards? And an average WR might be worth 40 or 50? Are those 50 extra yards really enough padding on Ward's resume to get him in the hall? Or would you want to put him in just to reward the blocking category? And if so, what's next? The best tackling punter? The best passing kicker? The best play-faking QB? The best pass-rushing CB?

I've posted such questions multiple times, and others like SSOG and Chase have addressed it as well, but in general none of the Ward supporters want to address it, because it quickly becomes clear that the value of being a great blocking WR is minimal. Here is an old post on this:

Regardless, I think looking at it like this shows that it cannot be a substantial impact.

This is pretty much how I've always come out. I wrote this once about trying to figure out the value of a blocking FB.

How would you breakdown who gets "credit" for a good running game?Assume a 1 RB, 1 FB, 2 WR, 1 TE offense.I'd say that a RB is -- at most -- equal to half the combined value of the OL, or 2.5X as valuable as the average guy. The QB and 2 WRs have negligible but nonzero impacts, both "to stretch the field" and as as blockers. I'd say the TE and FB are even.How about these percentages:RB - 25%OL - 50% (10% each)QB - 3%WR - 8% (4% each)TE - 8%FB - 8%A good rushing offense might produce 500 rushing yards over average. If you're good rushing offense is perfectly evenly distributed with above average players, the FB would produces about 40 yards a season over an average FB?What's the maximum number of rushing yards you think a FB could add to a team, both ignoring and then considering how often a team will run without a FB?

So your average WR may be responsible for 4% of a team's running prowess. On a good rushing team, we're talking 20 yards a season. Now a good rushing team might be 500 yards above average with a below average RB and two below average linemen, in part because of great blocking WRs (but mostly because of a great RB and three other good linemen). But I'm having a hard time figuring out how a great WR gives an offense more than 50 rushing yards on the season relative to an average blocking WR.

Not a big fan of the percentages across the board argument, that implies each team plays the same way. Ward is more akin to a TE when it comes to blocking and from what I can tell he's a pretty big part of the longer runs, not so much on the short stuff. Of course the fact that you have to double Moss or TO or others which limits the # you can put in the box is pretty significant. I really don't know the answer to the question, all I do know is Ward was a very big part of 2 championships this decade. FWIW, I probably take Moss, Harrison and Ward and go with a 3 WR formation. Or take 12 players on offense like defense, and take both Hines and Neal. Of course you can argue TO is still bigger than Ward or Harrison, but I'll look at this from a "how do I want to set up my team" philosophy and IMO, Moss, Marvin and Ward would be the way to go.

While the percentage across the board argument might not apply, the fact remains that (IMO) it is really hard to come up with any method that would suggest a great blocking WR is adding significant value, where value would be defined in tangible results like extra yards and TDs gained because of his blocking. I mean, whether or not he plays like a TE, is the best blocking WR ever, etc., what do you think is the added value he provides? What tangible results do you think the Steelers have gotten because of his blocking that they wouldn't have otherwise had?And whatever method there is to characterize that yields just his blocking value, which as you point out is at least partly, if not fully, offset by the strengths of the other WRs under discussion here, like Moss's ability to keep more defenders out of the box. Hines Ward is a great player. But he is not among the very best WRs of his era. By definition, that suggests he has no business on an All Decade team.

 

[Tau837]

A couple other old posts on the value of WR blocking:

"The best blocking WR" is a nice little title to add to your resume (although, personally, I think a lot of the Hines Ward mythology is a total joke. He is *NOT* the greatest blocking WR in NFL history),

Of those that were good-to-outstanding wide receivers... yes he certainly is.

OF ALL TIME? No. Not even close. I'm sure a bunch of those guys back in the smashmouth '70s were better. Even among recent guys, I'm not sure Hines Ward was better than guys like Eddie McCaffrey, Keyshawn Johnson, or Art Monk, it's just that Hines Ward got the "best blocking WR" label stuck on him at some point and everything started snowballing. The Hines Ward Mythology at this point is ridiculous. Nobody has the slightest bit of evidence to support it, but everybody keeps repeating it as if it's fact and insinuating that it's really not even open for discussion. Hines Ward is a great blocker, but his reputation is a media creation.Besides, let's say for a moment that he is the greatest blocking WR that ever graced God's Green Earth. Exactly how valuable is that, really? How many rushing yards a year does Hines Ward contribute?

Very, very conservatively, I'd say that the RB and the OL deserve 80% of the credit for an RB's rushing yards. I'd actually probably estimate that it was more, but we're trying to get a conservative projection, here. So let's say that the WRs and TEs account for a ludicrously high 20% of a team's rushing yards through their blocking prowess. Now, naturally the TEs are going to be more responsible for that than the WRs, so let's say that the TEs get 12% and the WRs get 8%. On the average NFL play, there are probably 2.5 WRs on the field, so an average WR might account for 3.2% of the team's rushing yards through his blocking. Over the last 8 seasons, Pitt has averaged 1992 rushing yards a year, so an average blocking WR would be responsible for 64 of those.

Let's say that Hines Ward, however, is amazingly TWICE AS VALUABLE as an average blocking WR (I don't think he is, but again, we're trying to come up with a "best case scenario" estimate), which would mean he's responsible for 128 rushing yards a season solely on the strength of his blocking prowess. That's 64 more yards per year than you'd expect from an average WR. Sixty four. Are those 64 extra yards a year enough to vault a WR from unlikely Hall of Famer to a guy who, according to MoP, is far and away the greatest receiver in NFL history? At the end of this season, Hines Ward will have accounted for 830 rushing yards over average for his career. Are those 830 extra rushing yards more valuable than Jerry Rice's 11,000 more receiving yards?

It's a total joke. Again, "best blocking WR" is a nice title to add to your resume, but at the end of the day, it really makes as much difference as the title "best tackling punter" or "best kick-blocking DE" or "best punt-blocking CB" or "best punting QB".

I think Ward's blocking is a bit overrated.

The designed a play that had Ward block Jason Babin (DE w/ 18 sacks) 1-on-1 at the edge earlier this year. He stoned Babin at the snap, protecting Ben's blindside. And that's at 35 years of age.

That's great. He is clearly one of the best blocking WRs of his generation.So?

I have asked this before, maybe in this thread. Someone quantify this for me. How many more yards did the Steelers gain per game because Ward was a great blocking WR (i.e., as opposed to him being an average blocking WR)? I'm sick and tired of these vague generalities. Let's quantify Ward's impact on this front.

On that play in question, it was good for 11 yards and a first down, on 3rd down.

That didn't really address my question, unless you are saying those 11 yards and that 1st down are the only positives we can take from Ward's blocking.Seriously. How many yards did the Steelers rush for per game in Ward's career? Now, how to divide those yards up among the RBs, the OL, the TEs who were blocking, and the WRs who were blocking? What did Ward contribute, 3 yards per game? 5 yards per game?

I think this kind of analysis quickly shows his blocking was not as important as the greater receiving contributions of other peer WRs.

Please, prove me wrong if you disagree.

Unfortunately for blocking, they cant keep those stats. Maybe someday though.Want a guess? Its for more additional yards then any other WR, ever. Hope that works for you.

Even if true, it doesn't adequately address the issue. Do the additional yards add up to as many yards as Ward's peers gained over him in receiving yards? I seriously doubt it.This is exactly the point. Those that extoll Ward's blocking ability want to just leave it at that, with no actual examination of how that value compares to the extra receiving yards and TDs his HOF caliber peers gained.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

it is really hard to come up with any method

Watch the games. Looks at the effect. Evaluate the total football player and his place as a NFL Great.Exactly what the HOF committee is expected to do.Not just lean on the stats, after the fact. That moronic. Ill add a couple more for you... leadership and a NFL ambassador. Unmatched. Unparallelled.

 

[Tau837]

it is really hard to come up with any method

Watch the games. Looks at the effect. Evaluate the total football player and his place as a NFL Great.Exactly what the HOF committee is expected to do.Not just lean on the stats, after the fact. That moronic. Ill add a couple more for you... leadership and a NFL ambassador. Unmatched. Unparallelled.

So, rather than address the point of the posts, you choose to call people with different perspectives moronic. If Ward's blocking has had a non-trivial effect on the Steelers running game, it must be quantifiable. If it can't be quantified, it is not a non-trivial effect. Sorry if that doesn't fit your biased perspective.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

it is really hard to come up with any method

Watch the games. Looks at the effect. Evaluate the total football player and his place as a NFL Great.

Exactly what the HOF committee is expected to do.

Not just lean on the stats, after the fact. That moronic.

Ill add a couple more for you... leadership and a NFL ambassador. Unmatched. Unparallelled.

So, rather than address the point of the posts, you choose to call people with different perspectives moronic. If Ward's blocking has had a non-trivial effect on the Steelers running game, it must be quantifiable. If it can't be quantified, it is not a non-trivial effect. Sorry if that doesn't fit your biased perspective.

No I was just saying that the the act of only looking at stats as a HOF voter, after the fact, and only using that as a barometer of worthiness is moronic.You need to take more into consideration. You have to be willing to watch the actual careers, not just read an excel sheet.

 

[Tau837]

it is really hard to come up with any method

Watch the games. Looks at the effect. Evaluate the total football player and his place as a NFL Great.

Exactly what the HOF committee is expected to do.

Not just lean on the stats, after the fact. That moronic.

Ill add a couple more for you... leadership and a NFL ambassador. Unmatched. Unparallelled.

So, rather than address the point of the posts, you choose to call people with different perspectives moronic. If Ward's blocking has had a non-trivial effect on the Steelers running game, it must be quantifiable. If it can't be quantified, it is not a non-trivial effect. Sorry if that doesn't fit your biased perspective.

No I was just saying that the the act of only looking at stats as a HOF voter, after the fact, and only using that as a barometer of worthiness is moronic.You need to take more into consideration. You have to be willing to watch the actual careers, not just read an excel sheet.

I have been watching games since the late 1970s. I have seen a lot of games including Ward as well as a lot of games including Holt, Moss, Owens, Harrison, Bruce, Brown, Carter, Irvin, Rice, Lofton, Reed, Monk, etc.I have watched and followed the actual careers of players like Ward and Holt. I don't just read Excel spreadsheets, PFR pages, etc.

Yet I don't agree with you.