If Torry Holt really is done...is he a Hall of Famer? (3 Viewers)

[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.

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.

Im cool with you disagreeing with his overall worthiness, thats a totally understandable position.Im not cool when you say certain elements of players game cant be considered because you don't have a statistical method of value.

 

[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.

Im cool with you disagreeing with his overall worthiness, thats a totally understandable position.Im not cool when you say certain elements of players game cant be considered because you don't have a statistical method of value.

I stand by my statements that if Ward's blocking makes a significant difference, it should be measurable. Examples are given above of ways to attempt to measure the impact. Are they perfect? No. Does that mean we should throw our hands up and say there is no way to measure it? No. Just going through the exercises outlined above shows that, even though we cannot precisely pinpoint the exact effect, it is very likely to have been minimal. If you disagree, make a counter argument besides "just watch games".

 

[BigSteelThrill]

if Ward's blocking makes a significant difference, it should be measurable

Yeah, when you figure that out, let Canton know they can start including things such as blocking and leadership and intangibles as a consideration.

 

[Tau837]

if Ward's blocking makes a significant difference, it should be measurable

Yeah, when you figure that out, let Canton know they can start including things such as blocking and leadership and intangibles as a consideration.

I figured as much. No counter argument. Same as every other time this came up around here over the years.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

if Ward's blocking makes a significant difference, it should be measurable

Yeah, when you figure that out, let Canton know they can start including things such as blocking and leadership and intangibles as a consideration.

I figured as much. No counter argument. Same as every other time this came up around here over the years.

Its not a measurable in terms of statistics. Not even for linemen. That's why you get no method and yet it still remains a real consideration.

 

[Synesthesia]

if Ward's blocking makes a significant difference, it should be measurable

Yeah, when you figure that out, let Canton know they can start including things such as blocking and leadership and intangibles as a consideration.

I figured as much. No counter argument. Same as every other time this came up around here over the years.

Its not a measurable in terms of statistics. Not even for linemen. That's why you get no method and yet it still remains a real consideration.

BS. If something has an impact on the game, it is measurable. If Ward's blocking improved Pittsburgh's offense, then it should have resulted in more yards, more first downs, greater ToP, or more points. If Ward's blocking did not do one of those 4 things, then it did not improve Pittsburgh's offense. End of discussion. People throw out the magical "intangibles" word as if it's some kind of "get out of argument free" card. Intangible does not mean immeasurable. If something is not measurable, then it is not significant or worthy of consideration. Torrey Holt provided measurably more receiving value than Hines Ward. I'm not just talking about the raw statistics, I'm talking about the awards and the ranks of their respective offenses. The question then becomes whether Ward's blocking can offset that. In my opinion, I don't think there's any way to spin it to even come close.

As for the leadership and ambassador stuff... save it. John Lynch was a bigger community servant, and it'll have the exact same impact on his hall chances- zilch. Rod Smith was comparable as a receiver (and as a blocker), but was a far better story (most successful undrafted receiver of all time), and that won't provide enough mileage to get him into the Hall. And what kind of ambassador is repeatedly voted the dirtiest player in the league?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

BS. If something has an impact on the game, it is measurable.

So go ahead and let Canton (and the NFL) know what statistical formula you came up with.

 

[Wadsworth]

Boomer Esiason had the best play fake of any QB in the history of the NFL. He belongs in the Hall.

 

[SacramentoBob]

If you're having to make up new categories for a player to get him in the hall, he's not HOF worthy.

 

[N Zone]

Marshall Faulk and Steven Jackson did pretty good with Holt blocking. C'mon, Holt and Bruce are each >>>>>> Hines Ward.

I'll rank WRs not in the HOF that are retired or close to done, off the top of my head:

1. Randy Moss

2. Terrell Owens

3. Marvin Harrison

4. Chris Carter

5. Tim Brown

6. Isaac Bruce

7. Torry Holt

8. Andre Reed

9. Hines Ward

10. Henry Ellard

11. Jimmy Smith

12. Rod Smith

13. Irving Fryar

 

[GregR]

Marshall Faulk and Steven Jackson did pretty good with Holt blocking. C'mon, Holt and Bruce are each >>>>>> Hines Ward.

I'll rank WRs not in the HOF that are retired or close to done, off the top of my head:

1. Randy Moss

2. Terrell Owens

3. Marvin Harrison

4. Chris Carter

5. Tim Brown

6. Isaac Bruce

7. Torry Holt

8. Andre Reed

9. Hines Ward

10. Henry Ellard

11. Jimmy Smith

12. Rod Smith

13. Irving Fryar

Good list. The bolded are why I don't think Holt will get in. Too many of the guys that should get in ahead of him are from his era.Loved him as a player though. Would love it for him if he got in, but I don't think I could justify it for him.

 

[Nero]

Marshall Faulk and Steven Jackson did pretty good with Holt blocking. C'mon, Holt and Bruce are each >>>>>> Hines Ward.I'll rank WRs not in the HOF that are retired or close to done, off the top of my head:1. Randy Moss2. Terrell Owens3. Marvin Harrison4. Chris Carter5. Tim Brown6. Isaac Bruce7. Torry Holt8. Andre Reed9. Hines Ward10. Henry Ellard11. Jimmy Smith12. Rod Smith13. Irving Fryar

It's inconceivable how someone could list Bruce over Holt. Martz came with his "amazing system" in the prime of Bruce's career(27 years old), yet in his first year, he did not exceed his previous best outside of the system. In one season he was surpassed by Holt even though Bruce was in his prime. When Holt reached 27, he averaged roughly 104 rec 1460 yards 11TD's for the next three years. Holt was clearly better than Bruce, even while Bruce was in his prime.Martz system was amazing because it had Holt and Bruce. Warner was amazing because he had Holt and Bruce, and then Fitzgerald and Bolden.The more I look at it, Holt would be 4 on my list ahead of Carter and Brown. HOF no doubt.

 

[N Zone]

Marshall Faulk and Steven Jackson did pretty good with Holt blocking. C'mon, Holt and Bruce are each >>>>>> Hines Ward.I'll rank WRs not in the HOF that are retired or close to done, off the top of my head:1. Randy Moss2. Terrell Owens3. Marvin Harrison4. Chris Carter5. Tim Brown6. Isaac Bruce7. Torry Holt8. Andre Reed9. Hines Ward10. Henry Ellard11. Jimmy Smith12. Rod Smith13. Irving Fryar

It's inconceivable how someone could list Bruce over Holt. Martz came with his "amazing system" in the prime of Bruce's career(27 years old), yet in his first year, he did not exceed his previous best outside of the system. In one season he was surpassed by Holt even though Bruce was in his prime. When Holt reached 27, he averaged roughly 104 rec 1460 yards 11TD's for the next three years. Holt was clearly better than Bruce, even while Bruce was in his prime.Martz system was amazing because it had Holt and Bruce. Warner was amazing because he had Holt and Bruce, and then Fitzgerald and Bolden.The more I look at it, Holt would be 4 on my list ahead of Carter and Brown. HOF no doubt.

I can buy that argument, except for the part about Bruce having a great season before Martz, what's wrong with that? That huge season Bruce had very early in his career only shows how dynamic of a reciever he was and that he could carry the team back then single handedly. Don't forget Bruce won the Super Bowl, not Holt.

 

[Nero]

I only point out Bruce's prior season to say that Martz's system did not do anything for Bruce other than what he had already established. Given Roy Williams' 16 TD's in two seasons with Joey Harrington, his one year of success wasn't that big of a stretch. Knox, Hester, Bryant Johnson, and an aging Isaac Bruce were no different than they were outside of Martz's system. Mike Furrey is the only WR that I can recall that didn't attain the same level of success outside of Martz's system, but he was DB. Martz's system did not make Holt. Holt, Bruce and Faulk made Martz's system and he failed without them.

 

[Tau837]

Marshall Faulk and Steven Jackson did pretty good with Holt blocking. C'mon, Holt and Bruce are each >>>>>> Hines Ward.

I'll rank WRs not in the HOF that are retired or close to done, off the top of my head:

1. Randy Moss

2. Terrell Owens

3. Marvin Harrison

4. Chris Carter

5. Tim Brown

6. Isaac Bruce

7. Torry Holt

8. Andre Reed

9. Hines Ward

10. Henry Ellard

11. Jimmy Smith

12. Rod Smith

13. Irving Fryar

Good list. The bolded are why I don't think Holt will get in. Too many of the guys that should get in ahead of him are from his era.Loved him as a player though. Would love it for him if he got in, but I don't think I could justify it for him.

IMO it is a stretch to say Carter and Brown are from Holt's era. They both played more than 10 years before Holt entered the league:Carter 1987-2002

Brown 1988-2004

Holt 1999-2009

Overlapping careers <> same era.

Also, as posted previously:

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.

 

[GregR]

Marshall Faulk and Steven Jackson did pretty good with Holt blocking. C'mon, Holt and Bruce are each >>>>>> Hines Ward.

I'll rank WRs not in the HOF that are retired or close to done, off the top of my head:

1. Randy Moss

2. Terrell Owens

3. Marvin Harrison

4. Chris Carter

5. Tim Brown

6. Isaac Bruce

7. Torry Holt

8. Andre Reed

9. Hines Ward

10. Henry Ellard

11. Jimmy Smith

12. Rod Smith

13. Irving Fryar

Good list. The bolded are why I don't think Holt will get in. Too many of the guys that should get in ahead of him are from his era.Loved him as a player though. Would love it for him if he got in, but I don't think I could justify it for him.

IMO it is a stretch to say Carter and Brown are from Holt's era. They both played more than 10 years before Holt entered the league:Carter 1987-2002

Brown 1988-2004

Holt 1999-2009

Overlapping careers <> same era.

Also, as posted previously:

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.

Yep, that's why I said "too many" people on the list above him were from his era instead of saying "everyone" on the list was.I think we'll see Moss, Owens and Harrison get in easily, and anyone after that will struggle. By the time enough players at other positions clear out that they would be in consideration, whoever ends up on top of the present era (Megatron, Fitz, AJ, etc) will start becoming eligible and guys like Holt and Bruce will probably keep sliding off at the cut down votes.

Holt really could have used a couple more years of play to cement a position. If he fared better on the all-time lists at the time he retired it would really have helped his HoF resume.

 

[Tau837]

I think we'll see Moss, Owens and Harrison get in easily, and anyone after that will struggle. By the time enough players at other positions clear out that they would be in consideration, whoever ends up on top of the present era (Megatron, Fitz, AJ, etc) will start becoming eligible and guys like Holt and Bruce will probably keep sliding off at the cut down votes.

It will likely be 10-15 years before Megatron, Fitz, and/or AJ are eligible for HOF consideration. I predict another 7-8 WRs will be inducted before any of them are eligible. The only question IMO is which 7-8 from this pool: Reed, Carter, Brown, Moss, Owens, Harrison, Bruce, Holt, Ward.I don't believe any WR has been a finalist and not ultimately made it, which implies all of Reed, Carter, and Brown will make it. Moss, Owens, and Harrison are locks. I think 1-2 of the others will make it. I'd vote for all but Ward and Reed.

 

[N Zone]

Marshall Faulk and Steven Jackson did pretty good with Holt blocking. C'mon, Holt and Bruce are each >>>>>> Hines Ward.I'll rank WRs not in the HOF that are retired or close to done, off the top of my head:1. Randy Moss2. Terrell Owens3. Marvin Harrison4. Chris Carter5. Tim Brown6. Isaac Bruce7. Torry Holt8. Andre Reed9. Hines Ward10. Henry Ellard11. Jimmy Smith12. Rod Smith13. Irving Fryar

oops, forgot Sterling Sharpe, I'd vote him in the HOF but I know it won't happen except maybe as a senior nominee way way in the future. I'd put Sterling at 8.a.

 

[finito]

Marshall Faulk and Steven Jackson did pretty good with Holt blocking. C'mon, Holt and Bruce are each >>>>>> Hines Ward.I'll rank WRs not in the HOF that are retired or close to done, off the top of my head:1. Randy Moss2. Terrell Owens3. Marvin Harrison4. Chris Carter5. Tim Brown6. Isaac Bruce7. Torry Holt8. Andre Reed9. Hines Ward10. Henry Ellard11. Jimmy Smith12. Rod Smith13. Irving Fryar

oops, forgot Sterling Sharpe, I'd vote him in the HOF but I know it won't happen except maybe as a senior nominee way way in the future. I'd put Sterling at 8.a.

Wish he'd have had a full career; if he hadn't had to retire early I think he could have been 3rd or 4th on that list, he was amazing.

 

[CalBear]

I think we'll see Moss, Owens and Harrison get in easily, and anyone after that will struggle. By the time enough players at other positions clear out that they would be in consideration, whoever ends up on top of the present era (Megatron, Fitz, AJ, etc) will start becoming eligible and guys like Holt and Bruce will probably keep sliding off at the cut down votes.

It will likely be 10-15 years before Megatron, Fitz, and/or AJ are eligible for HOF consideration. I predict another 7-8 WRs will be inducted before any of them are eligible. The only question IMO is which 7-8 from this pool: Reed, Carter, Brown, Moss, Owens, Harrison, Bruce, Holt, Ward.

You really think so? Here are the last 8 HOF WR inductions (by retirement date):Jerry Rice 1985-2000

Michael Irvin 1988-1999

Art Monk 1980-1995

James Lofton 1978-1993

Steve Largent 1976-1989

John Stallworth 1974-1987

Charlie Joiner 1969-1986

Lynn Swann 1974-1982

The last 8 inducted WRs cover 25 years of eligibility (leaving out retirees in the most recent 5 years). Only 3 whose careers ended in the 90s. Only four from the 80s. 7-8 more will get in by 2022-2027? I don't see it, especially given the way that Carter and Brown are waiting.

I think Carter will get in in the next few years. Harrison will get in first ballot in 2013. Owens and Moss will be first or second ballot (second only if people want to deduct dipwad points) when they're eligible. But frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if those four are the only WR inductees in the next 10 years. Reed and Brown both being in the pool highlights that they both have fairly weak cases. Bruce might make it, depends on how he's viewed when he comes up. And then there's Ward who I won't get back into here.

So, that's 8 WRs. Every single one of them would have to make it in the next 10-15 years for your statement to be correct. There's nobody else, unless you want to consider Reggie Wayne, which you shouldn't.

More likely, at least 2-3 from that list will not be in the HOF by the time the current big WRs are eligible. So if you're Holt and you haven't made it by then, you'll be up against Fitzgerald, A.Johnson, Reed, Brown, and maybe Bruce. Just no way. And barring injury, both A.Johnson and Fitzgerald will pass Holt in receiving yards before he's HOF-eligible, not to mention Tony Gonzalez and Reggie Wayne, and possibly Boldin. So he'll be career #12-15 in terms of receiving yardage, #30+ in terms of TDs by the time he's eligible. One All-Pro, two excellent seasons, three good seasons.

Looks implausible to me.

 

[Synesthesia]

I think we'll see Moss, Owens and Harrison get in easily, and anyone after that will struggle. By the time enough players at other positions clear out that they would be in consideration, whoever ends up on top of the present era (Megatron, Fitz, AJ, etc) will start becoming eligible and guys like Holt and Bruce will probably keep sliding off at the cut down votes.

It will likely be 10-15 years before Megatron, Fitz, and/or AJ are eligible for HOF consideration. I predict another 7-8 WRs will be inducted before any of them are eligible. The only question IMO is which 7-8 from this pool: Reed, Carter, Brown, Moss, Owens, Harrison, Bruce, Holt, Ward.

You really think so? Here are the last 8 HOF WR inductions (by retirement date):Jerry Rice 1985-2000

Michael Irvin 1988-1999

Art Monk 1980-1995

James Lofton 1978-1993

Steve Largent 1976-1989

John Stallworth 1974-1987

Charlie Joiner 1969-1986

Lynn Swann 1974-1982

The last 8 inducted WRs cover 25 years of eligibility (leaving out retirees in the most recent 5 years). Only 3 whose careers ended in the 90s. Only four from the 80s. 7-8 more will get in by 2022-2027? I don't see it, especially given the way that Carter and Brown are waiting.

I think Carter will get in in the next few years. Harrison will get in first ballot in 2013. Owens and Moss will be first or second ballot (second only if people want to deduct dipwad points) when they're eligible. But frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if those four are the only WR inductees in the next 10 years. Reed and Brown both being in the pool highlights that they both have fairly weak cases. Bruce might make it, depends on how he's viewed when he comes up. And then there's Ward who I won't get back into here.

So, that's 8 WRs. Every single one of them would have to make it in the next 10-15 years for your statement to be correct. There's nobody else, unless you want to consider Reggie Wayne, which you shouldn't.

More likely, at least 2-3 from that list will not be in the HOF by the time the current big WRs are eligible. So if you're Holt and you haven't made it by then, you'll be up against Fitzgerald, A.Johnson, Reed, Brown, and maybe Bruce. Just no way. And barring injury, both A.Johnson and Fitzgerald will pass Holt in receiving yards before he's HOF-eligible, not to mention Tony Gonzalez and Reggie Wayne, and possibly Boldin. So he'll be career #12-15 in terms of receiving yardage, #30+ in terms of TDs by the time he's eligible. One All-Pro, two excellent seasons, three good seasons.

Looks implausible to me.

I agree that it's unlikely, but I wouldn't call it implausible. The 7 pro bowls will be a strong selling point. So will the 6 straight 1300 yard seasons, the fact that he was the go-to guy for the greatest show on turf, and most importantly, the receiving yards per game (there's a strong chance he'll be the record holder once he's up for consideration). If the Hall continues with its reluctance to elect WRs, there's no way he makes it, but given the offensive changes the league has undergone over the last decade, I wouldn't be shocked to see the voters start letting more receivers through the doors, in which case Holt's name should be at the top of the list of guys who didn't quite make it under the old standards.

 

[Tau837]

I think we'll see Moss, Owens and Harrison get in easily, and anyone after that will struggle. By the time enough players at other positions clear out that they would be in consideration, whoever ends up on top of the present era (Megatron, Fitz, AJ, etc) will start becoming eligible and guys like Holt and Bruce will probably keep sliding off at the cut down votes.

It will likely be 10-15 years before Megatron, Fitz, and/or AJ are eligible for HOF consideration. I predict another 7-8 WRs will be inducted before any of them are eligible. The only question IMO is which 7-8 from this pool: Reed, Carter, Brown, Moss, Owens, Harrison, Bruce, Holt, Ward.

You really think so? Here are the last 8 HOF WR inductions (by retirement date):Jerry Rice 1985-2000

Michael Irvin 1988-1999

Art Monk 1980-1995

James Lofton 1978-1993

Steve Largent 1976-1989

John Stallworth 1974-1987

Charlie Joiner 1969-1986

Lynn Swann 1974-1982

The last 8 inducted WRs cover 25 years of eligibility (leaving out retirees in the most recent 5 years). Only 3 whose careers ended in the 90s. Only four from the 80s. 7-8 more will get in by 2022-2027? I don't see it, especially given the way that Carter and Brown are waiting.

I counter this with two things:1. 7 WRs (Swann, Stallworth, Lofton, Irvin, Monk, Hayes, Rice) have been inducted in the last 12 HOF classes, although Hayes was a senior nominee. I am projecting 7-8 WRs inducted in the next 10-15 classes, depending on when Andre Johnson, Megatron, and/or Fitz become HOF eligible... AJ is probably the first, and he probably won't be eligible for 12+ years. I am projecting 1-2 more non senior WR inductees than happened over the past 12 years, not a big change, especially considering the prominence of the passing game over that span.

2. Here is the breakdown by position over the past 12 classes (not including senior candidates):

QB - 6

RB - 6

WR - 6

TE - 2

OL - 10

DL - 11

LB - 4

DB - 4

Contributor - 6

That is 55 of a potential 60 inductees (at least by today's rules). Will the HOF committee pass on a player like Reed or Holt and induct fewer than the maximum of 5 non senior candidates? I doubt it, that doesn't seem to fit recent trends.

Now consider that over the next 12 years, there will probably be only 4 QBs (Favre, Warner, Manning, Brady), and possibly only a few RBs (Tomlinson, Bettis?, and who?). There isn't much reason to expect a significant increase at TE, OL, DL, LB, DB, or Contributor, so there is clearly room for an uptick in WRs.

As an aside, consider the past 5 years:

RB - 3

WR - 2

TE - 1

OL - 5

DL - 6

LB - 3

DB - 3

Contributor - 2

Some would probably be surprised that less than 25% of the past 5 classes have been offensive skill position players. IMO this sets the stage for a resurgence of offensive skill players to get in in the next several years.

I think Carter will get in in the next few years. Harrison will get in first ballot in 2013. Owens and Moss will be first or second ballot (second only if people want to deduct dipwad points) when they're eligible. But frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if those four are the only WR inductees in the next 10 years. Reed and Brown both being in the pool highlights that they both have fairly weak cases. Bruce might make it, depends on how he's viewed when he comes up. And then there's Ward who I won't get back into here.

So, that's 8 WRs. Every single one of them would have to make it in the next 10-15 years for your statement to be correct. There's nobody else, unless you want to consider Reggie Wayne, which you shouldn't.

To clarify, I named 9 WRs and said I think 7-8 of them will get in within the next 10-15 years. That's slightly different than "every single one of them" where you referred to a pool of 8, not including Wayne and somehow inexplicably not including Holt, the subject of this thread.

More likely, at least 2-3 from that list will not be in the HOF by the time the current big WRs are eligible. So if you're Holt and you haven't made it by then, you'll be up against Fitzgerald, A.Johnson, Reed, Brown, and maybe Bruce. Just no way. And barring injury, both A.Johnson and Fitzgerald will pass Holt in receiving yards before he's HOF-eligible, not to mention Tony Gonzalez and Reggie Wayne, and possibly Boldin. So he'll be career #12-15 in terms of receiving yardage, #30+ in terms of TDs by the time he's eligible. One All-Pro, two excellent seasons, three good seasons.

Looks implausible to me.

Well, you are suggesting that Reed and Brown will both still be eligible in 10-15 years. I think both will be in by then. Aside from that, you summarize Holt's case by ignoring his greatest accomplishments... all the seasons with 1300+ (and 1600+) receiving yards and ranking (currently) top 3 in receiving yards per game.

And at saying Holt had only 3 "good" seasons when he had 6 straight seasons of 1300+ receiving yards (an NFL record, by the way). He was on the All Decade team for the 2000s... that suggests he was a top 4 WR over a 10 year period.

 

[CalBear]

Aside from that, you summarize Holt's case by ignoring his greatest accomplishments... all the seasons with 1300+ (and 1600+) receiving yards and ranking (currently) top 3 in receiving yards per game.And at saying Holt had only 3 "good" seasons when he had 6 straight seasons of 1300+ receiving yards (an NFL record, by the way). He was on the All Decade team for the 2000s... that suggests he was a top 4 WR over a 10 year period.

I said he had two excellent seasons (2000 and 2003) and 3 good seasons (2001, 2004, 2005). 1300 as a number is a multiple endpoints situation (why 1300 and not 1350?); his 2002 season was not very impressive (91/1302/4), #7 in the league in receiving yardage, #8 in yards per game and not in the top 10 in TDs. All-Decade teams are bunk; he's on the All-Decade team because his career started in 1999 instead of 2003 like Andre Johnson or 2004 like Fitzgerald. Certainly both of those are likely to have better 10-year runs than Holt did.

 

[Tau837]

Aside from that, you summarize Holt's case by ignoring his greatest accomplishments... all the seasons with 1300+ (and 1600+) receiving yards and ranking (currently) top 3 in receiving yards per game. And at saying Holt had only 3 "good" seasons when he had 6 straight seasons of 1300+ receiving yards (an NFL record, by the way). He was on the All Decade team for the 2000s... that suggests he was a top 4 WR over a 10 year period.

I said he had two excellent seasons (2000 and 2003) and 3 good seasons (2001, 2004, 2005). 1300 as a number is a multiple endpoints situation (why 1300 and not 1350?); his 2002 season was not very impressive (91/1302/4), #7 in the league in receiving yardage, #8 in yards per game and not in the top 10 in TDs. All-Decade teams are bunk; he's on the All-Decade team because his career started in 1999 instead of 2003 like Andre Johnson or 2004 like Fitzgerald. Certainly both of those are likely to have better 10-year runs than Holt did.

I agree that All Decade teams are flawed for purposes of comparisons, but I mentioned it as evidence that Holt had a really strong decade, which he did. And I agree Fitz is likely to have a better 10 year run than Holt did. But it's no given Andre Johnson will.

Holt's best 10 year run is 1999-2008, his first 10 seasons, during which he had 869/12660/74 (14.6 ypr) receiving. Johnson has played 9 seasons and has 706/9656/52 (13.7 ypr) receiving. It's doubtful Johnson will ever have a 10 year stretch that matches Holt's best 10 year stretch in any of receptions, receiving yards, or receiving TDs.

Even Fitz, as good as he is, probably won't match Holt in receptions or receiving yards in his first 10 seasons. If he averages 78 receptions and 1275 receiving yards over the next 3 seasons, he will match Holt in both over a 10 year stretch (Fitz's seasons 2-11). And obviously he will be far ahead on TDs.

I realize there are other ways to judge performance besides the big three categories, but I think you are underrating Holt's decade of performance. How many other WRs have had seasons with 90+ receptions and 1300+ receiving yards that you have found to be unimpressive? One of the best things about Holt was his consistent high level of performance, such that his "worst" performance over an 8 year stretch was either 91/1302/4 or 93/1189/7... both of those being better than 3 of Fitz's 8 seasons and 4-6 of Johnson's 9 seasons, depending how you judge them.

 

[matuski]

I put him on level ground with the likes of Herman Moore.

 

[GregR]

Aside from that, you summarize Holt's case by ignoring his greatest accomplishments... all the seasons with 1300+ (and 1600+) receiving yards and ranking (currently) top 3 in receiving yards per game.And at saying Holt had only 3 "good" seasons when he had 6 straight seasons of 1300+ receiving yards (an NFL record, by the way). He was on the All Decade team for the 2000s... that suggests he was a top 4 WR over a 10 year period.

I said he had two excellent seasons (2000 and 2003) and 3 good seasons (2001, 2004, 2005). 1300 as a number is a multiple endpoints situation (why 1300 and not 1350?); his 2002 season was not very impressive (91/1302/4), #7 in the league in receiving yardage, #8 in yards per game and not in the top 10 in TDs. All-Decade teams are bunk; he's on the All-Decade team because his career started in 1999 instead of 2003 like Andre Johnson or 2004 like Fitzgerald. Certainly both of those are likely to have better 10-year runs than Holt did.

I agree that All Decade teams are flawed for purposes of comparisons, but I mentioned it as evidence that Holt had a really strong decade, which he did. And I agree Fitz is likely to have a better 10 year run than Holt did. But it's no given Andre Johnson will.Holt's best 10 year run is 1999-2008, his first 10 seasons, during which he had 869/12660/74 (14.6 ypr) receiving. Johnson has played 9 seasons and has 706/9656/52 (13.7 ypr) receiving. It's doubtful Johnson will ever have a 10 year stretch that matches Holt's best 10 year stretch in any of receptions, receiving yards, or receiving TDs.Even Fitz, as good as he is, probably won't match Holt in receptions or receiving yards in his first 10 seasons. If he averages 78 receptions and 1275 receiving yards over the next 3 seasons, he will match Holt in both over a 10 year stretch (Fitz's seasons 2-11). And obviously he will be far ahead on TDs.I realize there are other ways to judge performance besides the big three categories, but I think you are underrating Holt's decade of performance. How many other WRs have had seasons with 90+ receptions and 1300+ receiving yards that you have found to be unimpressive? One of the best things about Holt was his consistent high level of performance, such that his "worst" performance over an 8 year stretch was either 91/1302/4 or 93/1189/7... both of those being better than 3 of Fitz's 8 seasons and 4-6 of Johnson's 9 seasons, depending how you judge them.

The 10 year of performance thing between Holt and Andre Johnson is a bit of a misnomer... Johnson won't equal Holt's totals as you say. But only really because Johnson has already missed 22 games out of what would be his 10 year span while Holt is only missing 2. Johnson is slightly ahead of Holt in receptions per game, behind in touchdowns, and they are extremely close in yards. Barring his career ending early I expect Johnson will probably end up with the better HoF credentials based on a bit more longevity and having been viewed as the top receiver for a stretch in his era where I don't think Holt ever really unseated Moss and company in people's view. Though games lost to injury - especially if it continues - and lack of a title if he doesn't win one, could still hold Johnson back and out of the hall.

 

[Tau837]

Saw thoughts on Holt's chances on another forum in the wake of Reed's election and thought I'd bump this thread. Here is a summary of his case:

1. He is currently #5 all time in receiving yards per game (77.5), and could end up higher, as a couple players ahead of him are still active.

2. He finished in the top 5 in receptions in 4 seasons and led the league 1 time.

3. He finished in the top 5 in receiving yards in 4 seasons and led the league 2 times.

4. Holt holds the NFL record in consecutive seasons with at least 90 receptions (6).

5. Holt holds the NFL record in consecutive seasons with at least 1300 receiving yards (6).

6. Holt is tied with Marvin Harrison and Calvin Johnson as the only players with 2 seasons of 1600+ receiving yards.

7. Holt reached 10,000 (116 games) and 11,000 (130 games) career receiving yards faster than any other player.

8. Holt ranked first in the NFL from 2000-08 with 817 receptions for 11,872 yards and 562 first downs during that span.

9. Holt was 1st team All Pro once and 2nd team All Pro once and made 7 Pro Bowls.

Reed really got in because of his role in the Bills mini-dynasty run to 4 straight Super Bowls. Some people like to point out that the Hall of Fame is about fame, not just numbers. One cannot tell the story of that NFL era without describing the Bills, their K gun offense, and their star players, which included Reed.

Holt has a similar positive going for him. He was a key performer in the Greatest Show on Turf that was one of the best offenses in history and made it to two Super Bowls. And he does have a championship to show for it, which Reed does not.

Having said all that, the question for Holt is not whether or not he was better than Reed... or Charlie Joiner, Lynn Swann, or John Stallworth, to name a few other HOFers. IMO he was better than all of them.

The question is how he compares to other WRs of his own era, as has been discussed in this thread. And to a lesser degree how he compares to all players of all positions from his own era, plus other contributors (coaches, commissioners, owners, etc.) from a broader era. He faces a lot of very stiff competition from other WRs of his era:

- Moss, Owens, and Harrison are locks to make it, and Bruce has a very good chance.

- Tim Brown's career overlapped with Holt's and he is a multi-time finalist, so it seems very likely he will make it.

- There will be those who advocate for some guys who will closely follow Holt, like Ward and/or Steve Smith; I think Holt is clearly better than them, but some might disagree.

- And at the time Holt becomes eligible for consideration, there will be others still active but who are known to be HOF locks, guys like Calvin Johnson and Larry Fitzgerald.

To some degree, it becomes a numbers game. How many WRs from this broad era will make it? I think Holt has a good chance, but he is not a lock.

Any new thoughts on Holt's chances?

 

[Ghost Rider]

With Reed having made it, Holt and Bruce should both be near-locks now, although I doubt either will make it in on their first try.

 

[Tau837]

With Reed having made it, Holt and Bruce should both be near-locks now, although I doubt either will make it in on their first try.

I agree that it seems that Holt and Bruce are more deserving than Reed. I am inclined to think that all of Brown, Holt, Bruce, Harrison, Moss, and Owens will make it.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Agreed. It will take years for all of them to get in (I don't think any of them will be first balloters, mainly because I think writers will make Moss and Owens wait cause of the drama both caused), but they will all make it.

 

[spider321]

Holt had SIX years in a row with at least 1,300 yards receiving!!!!!

That's tough to beat!

 

[Tito the Builder]

Torry who?

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Holt had SIX years in a row with at least 1,300 yards receiving!!!!!

That's tough to beat!

Marvin Harrison had 8 seasons of 1,100+ and he didn't get in…yet.