Patriots to sign WR Torry Holt (1 Viewer)

[David Yudkin]

Per Tom Curran and the Boston Globe.

Veteran WR Torry Holt to sign with Patriots

Posted by Shalise Manza Young, Globe Staff April 20, 2010 01:38 PM

Torry Holt, a 12-year veteran receiver whose best days were as part of the Rams' "Greatest Show on Turf," will sign a one-year, $1.7 million deal with New England, according to a league source.

Listed at 6 feet and 200 pounds, Holt spent last season with the Jaguars, with 51 receptions for 722 yards (14.2 yards per catch). During the first 10 seasons of his career, all in St. Louis, Holt averaged 87 catches per season; in the Super Bowl XXXVI loss to the Patriots, he recorded five grabs.

Soon to be 34 years old, Holt provides more depth to a position needing it in New England.

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

Is there any news associated with Wes Welkers progress that prompted this?

I suppose it's a can't lose scenario in signing Holt, unless they've spent a bit of money.

Hard to see him signing for too much above the minimum.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

I don't care who signs him...unless they have a time machine he's done.

 

[Donsmith753]

Shark move is to get this guy off the Waiver Wire.

 

[TheWick]

you are now dead to me Tory Holt

 

[David Yudkin]

From asking around, there is no bad news to report on Welker and he should be considered medically ahead of schedule. No one will know how he fares football wise until he gets back on to the field. Best guess is still a mid November return.

 

[TommyGilmore]

I guess Randy Moss is expendable now.

 

[Honda]

He won't be on the opening day roster.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

much like last years galloway move, this means nothing

 

[David Yudkin]

I don't care who signs him...unless they have a time machine he's done.

If by "done" you mean he is no longer a first strike, big play, 1600 yard receiver then I agree with you.But NE has Randy Moss and a whole bunch of ??? at WR. Welker is hurt. Tate went on IR. Edelman is a 2nd year player that was a QB in college. Beyond that there's not much.I think Holt can be a decent possession receiver to play opposite Moss and maybe get 50-60 receptions for maybe 700 yards. So pretty similar to numbers he put up the past two seasons. While that's not great, that's better than the other guys on the Pats roster could probably post at this point.

 

[MAC_32]

He won't be on the opening day roster.

I think he'll be on the roster as long as Welker is on the PUP.

 

[Honda]

He won't be on the opening day roster.

I think he'll be on the roster as long as Welker is on the PUP.

He won't be on the roster for very long.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I don't care who signs him...unless they have a time machine he's done.

If by "done" you mean he is no longer a first strike, big play, 1600 yard receiver then I agree with you.But NE has Randy Moss and a whole bunch of ??? at WR. Welker is hurt. Tate went on IR. Edelman is a 2nd year player that was a QB in college. Beyond that there's not much.I think Holt can be a decent possession receiver to play opposite Moss and maybe get 50-60 receptions for maybe 700 yards. So pretty similar to numbers he put up the past two seasons. While that's not great, that's better than the other guys on the Pats roster could probably post at this point.

Dave you saying you dont believe in Edelman? that he cant do a better job than holt at this point?

 

[David Yudkin]

He won't be on the opening day roster.

I think he'll be on the roster as long as Welker is on the PUP.

He won't be on the roster for very long.

I'm willing to hear you out on this . . . but consider the Pats WR corps is presently:Randy MossWes Welker (injured)Brandon Tate (injured)Julian EdelmanDavid PattenSam Aiken (injured)Isaiah StanbachMatt SlaterDarnell JenkinsSo explain why the Pats won't be keeping Holt???

 

[David Yudkin]

I don't care who signs him...unless they have a time machine he's done.

If by "done" you mean he is no longer a first strike, big play, 1600 yard receiver then I agree with you.But NE has Randy Moss and a whole bunch of ??? at WR. Welker is hurt. Tate went on IR. Edelman is a 2nd year player that was a QB in college. Beyond that there's not much.I think Holt can be a decent possession receiver to play opposite Moss and maybe get 50-60 receptions for maybe 700 yards. So pretty similar to numbers he put up the past two seasons. While that's not great, that's better than the other guys on the Pats roster could probably post at this point.

Dave you saying you dont believe in Edelman? that he cant do a better job than holt at this point?

Edelman will play the slot. Holt would play on the outside. So Moss/Edelman/Holt would be in on 3 receiver sets.

 

[Honda]

He won't be on the opening day roster.

I think he'll be on the roster as long as Welker is on the PUP.

He won't be on the roster for very long.

I'm willing to hear you out on this . . . but consider the Pats WR corps is presently:Randy MossWes Welker (injured)Brandon Tate (injured)Julian EdelmanDavid PattenSam Aiken (injured)Isaiah StanbachMatt SlaterDarnell JenkinsSo explain why the Pats won't be keeping Holt???

Uh. I dunno. I was just throwing out the first thing that came to mind.But an out of the blue, a long time after FA began, just before the draft signing of an aged WR seems like a "we'll just take a look see" type signing to me.

 

[David Yudkin]

He won't be on the opening day roster.

I think he'll be on the roster as long as Welker is on the PUP.

He won't be on the roster for very long.

I'm willing to hear you out on this . . . but consider the Pats WR corps is presently:Randy MossWes Welker (injured)Brandon Tate (injured)Julian EdelmanDavid PattenSam Aiken (injured)Isaiah StanbachMatt SlaterDarnell JenkinsSo explain why the Pats won't be keeping Holt???

Uh. I dunno. I was just throwing out the first thing that came to mind.But an out of the blue, a long time after FA began, just before the draft signing of an aged WR seems like a "we'll just take a look see" type signing to me.

This is very typical for the Pats. They wait and comb the waiver wire, letting other teams overpay for the early crop of free agents.I would say that that strategy was fine when at the core they had the best or one of the best teams in the league and rounded out the roster with some vets to be role players. The problem is that they don't have the best core of players any longer and they have been trying to patch starting spots with long in the tooth players and they have too many of them for that plan to be effective. NE now has guys that are past their prime or yet to reach it, and that's a tough spot to be in.This signing was easy to see coming (I believe I brought it up months ago as the one guy the Pats would likely sign). Things didn't work with Galloway, but I would guess things have a better chance of working out with Holt.

 

[Steed]

He won't be on the opening day roster.

I think he'll be on the roster as long as Welker is on the PUP.

He won't be on the roster for very long.

I'm willing to hear you out on this . . . but consider the Pats WR corps is presently:Randy MossWes Welker (injured)Brandon Tate (injured)Julian EdelmanDavid PattenSam Aiken (injured)Isaiah StanbachMatt SlaterDarnell JenkinsSo explain why the Pats won't be keeping Holt???

Uh. I dunno. I was just throwing out the first thing that came to mind.But an out of the blue, a long time after FA began, just before the draft signing of an aged WR seems like a "we'll just take a look see" type signing to me.

Didn't they learn their lesson already with Galloway?

 

[Honda]

This signing was easy to see coming (I believe I brought it up months ago as the one guy the Pats would likely sign). Things didn't work with Galloway, but I would guess things have a better chance of working out with Holt.

I agree there. If Holt can catch 51 passes from David Garrard, imagine what he could do with a quarterback throwing to him.

 

[David Yudkin]

Didn't they learn their lesson already with Galloway?

On the surface, it's easy to make the comparison that the Pats signed an aging vet in both cases. But under scutiny, there are a lot of differences.Galloway typically was called upon to run a handful of standard routes over his career and did not have to know a team's entire playbook. Furthermore, he did not have to make dynamic, on the fly hot reads to break off his routes to a number of spots on the field by reading the way defenders reacted. NE rarely has their receivers run vanilla routes and will frequently audible one if not two wrinkles into a receiver's route at the line, in addition to the WR needing to make variations based on coverage. Long story short, the Pats asked Galloway to do things he was not accustomed to doing his entire career.Holt, on the other hand, appears to be more in tune with fine art of play calling and reading defenses. At least that's the hope for NE. Having played all those years in a Martz-based scheme, I would guess Holt has had a lot more plays to learn over the years and should have an easier time picking up the offense. Clearly that is a guess on my part, but I remember hearing that the Rams had over 1,000 offensive plays that they ran. The Pats playbook is equally sophisticated (although in recent years they have gotten away from the full catalogue).

 

[southeastjerome]

This is very typical for the Pats. They wait and comb the waiver wire, letting other teams overpay for the early crop of free agents.I would say that that strategy was fine when at the core they had the best or one of the best teams in the league and rounded out the roster with some vets to be role players. The problem is that they don't have the best core of players any longer and they have been trying to patch starting spots with long in the tooth players and they have too many of them for that plan to be effective. NE now has guys that are past their prime or yet to reach it, and that's a tough spot to be in.This signing was easy to see coming (I believe I brought it up months ago as the one guy the Pats would likely sign). Things didn't work with Galloway, but I would guess things have a better chance of working out with Holt.

So as a Pats fan, do you like this move?

 

[David Yudkin]

This is very typical for the Pats. They wait and comb the waiver wire, letting other teams overpay for the early crop of free agents.I would say that that strategy was fine when at the core they had the best or one of the best teams in the league and rounded out the roster with some vets to be role players. The problem is that they don't have the best core of players any longer and they have been trying to patch starting spots with long in the tooth players and they have too many of them for that plan to be effective. NE now has guys that are past their prime or yet to reach it, and that's a tough spot to be in.This signing was easy to see coming (I believe I brought it up months ago as the one guy the Pats would likely sign). Things didn't work with Galloway, but I would guess things have a better chance of working out with Holt.

So as a Pats fan, do you like this move?

Pats fans should look at this as an improvement to what they had . . . but not as good as if they acquired a Marshall, Boldin, or Holmes.Here in NE, there are tons of people screaming that the Pats did nothing while the Jets and Dolphins got better. I doubt signing Holt will change people that had that opinion.My biggest complaint with the Pats was not the personnel but the coaching and the playcalling, and if they don't do a better job in that regard the team will again be a playoff contender with no real hope of advancing very far.

 

[SuperJohn96]

He won't be on the opening day roster.

I think he'll be on the roster as long as Welker is on the PUP.

He won't be on the roster for very long.

I'm willing to hear you out on this . . . but consider the Pats WR corps is presently:Randy MossWes Welker (injured)Brandon Tate (injured)Julian EdelmanDavid PattenSam Aiken (injured)Isaiah StanbachMatt SlaterDarnell JenkinsSo explain why the Pats won't be keeping Holt???

How is Tate progressing from his 2009 injury?

 

[Donnybrook]

Nice little retirement community that the Patiots are running.

 

[David Yudkin]

How is Tate progressing from his 2009 injury?

That's been a bit of a mystery. Tate's story is that he wasn't that hurt when he got placed on IR last year and he was surprised he did. Some people told me they thought he tore his ACL or MCL again and that he still isn't right yet (but they hope he will be by the start of the season). Some outlets said he had his knee scoped and cleaned out but it was nothing major. Bottom line, there's been nothing definitive. Either way, his experience has been minimal, so he's a wildcard as to what he may or may not do. Expect little but hope for the best . . .

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Nice little retirement community that the Patiots are running.

Your fonts have looked funny as of late. Why the new shtick?

 

[Jason Wood]

I don't see the comparison to Joey Galloway, who I completely disregarded last year when they signed him.

Galloway was 38 coming off a 13-catch, 138-yard season when the Pats took a flier on him.

Holt will be 34 when the season begins and is coming off a 51-catch, 722-yard season. His 14.2 yards per catch was his best since 2004. He's no longer an elite difference maker, but he's easily someone that can contribute particularly in an offense that will spread the ball around.

Galloway made his living on the outside as a speed guy, Holt has always been a guy that used technique and timing over raw speed.

 

[Donnybrook]

Nice little retirement community that the Patiots are running.

Your fonts have looked funny as of late. Why the new shtick?

I can't spell to save my life. I try to write things in Word first but things come back in weird fonts. I apolige for the highjack.

 

[Sleeping King]

So as a Pats fan, do you like this move?

I'm not sure how you can't. Is he Holmes or Marshall? Absolutely not. Is he better than Aiken and Stanback who were playing significant snaps last season? Absolutely. One important thing he brings to the table is the ability to to play outside. He fills the "Gaffney" role that was very much lacking last season. No one should/could expect him to pull a 1000 yard season out this late in his career. However there is no reason he can't put up a very solid 65-800-5.

 

[Jason Wood]

So as a Pats fan, do you like this move?

I'm not sure how you can't. Is he Holmes or Marshall? Absolutely not. Is he better than Aiken and Stanback who were playing significant snaps last season? Absolutely. One important thing he brings to the table is the ability to to play outside. He fills the "Gaffney" role that was very much lacking last season. No one should/could expect him to pull a 1000 yard season out this late in his career. However there is no reason he can't put up a very solid 65-800-5.

I've got him at 53/700/5 at first pass.

 

[Steed]

So as a Pats fan, do you like this move?

I'm not sure how you can't. Is he Holmes or Marshall? Absolutely not. Is he better than Aiken and Stanback who were playing significant snaps last season? Absolutely. One important thing he brings to the table is the ability to to play outside. He fills the "Gaffney" role that was very much lacking last season. No one should/could expect him to pull a 1000 yard season out this late in his career. However there is no reason he can't put up a very solid 65-800-5.

I've got him at 53/700/5 at first pass.

He'll never see that in an offense that has Moss, Welker/Edelman, Faulk.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

So as a Pats fan, do you like this move?

I'm not sure how you can't. Is he Holmes or Marshall? Absolutely not. Is he better than Aiken and Stanback who were playing significant snaps last season? Absolutely. One important thing he brings to the table is the ability to to play outside. He fills the "Gaffney" role that was very much lacking last season. No one should/could expect him to pull a 1000 yard season out this late in his career. However there is no reason he can't put up a very solid 65-800-5.

I've got him at 53/700/5 at first pass.

42/560/4

 

[David Yudkin]

So as a Pats fan, do you like this move?

I'm not sure how you can't. Is he Holmes or Marshall? Absolutely not. Is he better than Aiken and Stanback who were playing significant snaps last season? Absolutely. One important thing he brings to the table is the ability to to play outside. He fills the "Gaffney" role that was very much lacking last season. No one should/could expect him to pull a 1000 yard season out this late in his career. However there is no reason he can't put up a very solid 65-800-5.

I've got him at 53/700/5 at first pass.

He'll never see that in an offense that has Moss, Welker/Edelman, Faulk.

As I see it, Moss will get his, Welker and Edleman combined will post what Welker would normally get, and then after that there are a lot of unaccounted for morsels.Everyone not named Moss or Welker totaled:

- 184 receptions, 1928 receiving yards, and 11 TD last year

- 159-1617-7 in 2008 with Cassel

- 190-2197-17 in 2007 with Brady

I think it's possible for Holt to hit the numbers that Woodrow projected . . . but a lot will depend on who else ends up on the Pats roster. If they take an early round receiver and tight end, that will again change the landscape.

 

[AngryPatriot]

Not thrilling... but if there was a favorable situation for Holt to be productive this could be it. 34 is not ancient in wr terms and he has good hands. We'll see if he makes the team but I think he will and help out.

 

[ceo3west]

Writing Holt off may be a mistake, especially with Brady. Joey Galloway had a career year at Holt's age.

 

[FavreCo]

I don't care who signs him...unless they have a time machine he's done.

He is one year older and yet he will put up better numbers than last year. He was at one of the WR graveyards last year.

 

[jurb26]

Theoretically, this should be a good fit. Holt is the kind of player who should be able to pick up the NE offense (which is highly complex) and fill the role of a chain mover. Moss gathering double coverage on nearly every snap will allow him far weaker coverage than what he's seen the past several years and he won't be asked to stretch the field or be a game breaker. Brady is also the best QB he will have ever played with. Still, I think he is done. If he can't put up respectable numbers in NE, he can't put them up anywhere. He just isn't a good WR anymore IMO.

 

[stp-d]

Before signing with the Pats, i was afraid I would have to drop Holt from my dynasty rosters to make room for rookies, but I don't see a better situation he could have landed into with the #2/#3 WR spot in question with a pass 1st offense with a Good QB.

 

[TommyGilmore]

34 is not ancient in wr terms and he has good hands.

True, but usually a receiver's stats will see a steady decline -- i.e., if Holt posts better than 51/722 in 2010 then it will be an anomoly.

 

[Steed]

Anyone that think's Holt is rosterable hasn't watched too much of him lately. Their's TEs that make this catch and take it to the house.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlig...t-63-yard-catch

 

[David Yudkin]

Anyone that think's Holt is rosterable hasn't watched too much of him lately. Their's TEs that make this catch and take it to the house.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlig...t-63-yard-catch

If the Pats get one 63 yard play from Holt they would do back flips.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

34 is not ancient in wr terms and he has good hands.

True, but usually a receiver's stats will see a steady decline -- i.e., if Holt posts better than 51/722 in 2010 then it will be an anomoly.

I'm not claiming he's fantasy gold, but to be fair to the guy the pats threw for 25% more completions than jax, and about double the td's.it'd be an anomaly for his stats to increase?+25% is something like 64-900, and ....uh....0 td's ---- that's not so bad.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Great signing IMO.

 

[David Yudkin]

34 is not ancient in wr terms and he has good hands.

True, but usually a receiver's stats will see a steady decline -- i.e., if Holt posts better than 51/722 in 2010 then it will be an anomoly.

Here were all the 34 year old WRs that scored at least as many fantasy points as Holt did last year and how they did at 33 . . .Terrell Owens 2007 226 196Marvin Harrison 2006 209 187Cris Carter 1999 202 173Joey Galloway 2005 189 74Jerry Rice 1996 187 292Irving Fryar 1996 185 139Tim Brown 2000 180 171Pete Retzlaff 1965 179 134Charlie Joiner 1981 161 137Rod Smith 2004 160 115Art Monk 1991 155 113Bobby Engram 2007 151 35Frank Lewis 1981 148 101Donald Driver 2009 143 132Derrick Mason 2008 134 139Tony Martin 1999 133 154Drew Hill 1990 132 142Henry Ellard 1995 131 142Don Maynard 1969 129 190Isaac Bruce 2006 128 71Nat Moore 1985 113 94Charley Taylor 1975 110 104Keyshawn Johnson 2006 110 120JT Smith 1989 110 130Andre Reed 1998 110 119Harold Jackson 1980 107 145Ed McCaffrey 2002 105 15Jimmy Smith 2003 105 145Paul Warfield 1976 98 DNPJames Lofton 1990 95 35Joe Horn 2006 92 71Haven Moses 1980 91 130Cliff Branch 1982 83 70Amani Toomer 2008 82 94Steve Largent 1988 76 143Muhsin Muhammad 2007 75 116Fred Biletnikoff 1977 75 97Overall, the 34 year olds averaged 129 points and the 33 year olds averaged 121. 20 did better, 17 did worse. But the top guys did better (which is intersting in its own right).

 

[Boston]

I never have an issue with this type of signing...the Pats have had a lot of success in the past with some signings that looked like an after-thought at the time. The problem I have (and Yudkn touched on it) is the Pats have been counting too much on these type of guys to be productive the last few years. Instead of being an added extra or quality depth guys like Holt, Galloway, Lewis, Baker, Springs and Burgess (to name a few) have been put in a position where if they don't succeed there's an issue. If the Pats had added a guy like Boldin than a signing like Holt could put their WR's over the top. Instead (as of now) the Pats are in a position where a guy like Holt or Crumpler needs to be productive because their respective positions are thin.

 

[Tau837]

Theoretically, this should be a good fit. Holt is the kind of player who should be able to pick up the NE offense (which is highly complex) and fill the role of a chain mover. Moss gathering double coverage on nearly every snap will allow him far weaker coverage than what he's seen the past several years and he won't be asked to stretch the field or be a game breaker. Brady is also the best QB he will have ever played with. Still, I think he is done. If he can't put up respectable numbers in NE, he can't put them up anywhere. He just isn't a good WR anymore IMO.

With regard to the bolded, while Brady will ultimately be judged to have been a better QB than Warner, Warner from 1999-2001 was better than Brady 2010+. For that matter Trent Green was a better QB for Holt in 2000 than Brady 2010+.That said, I agree with your premise that Brady will be an upgrade over the QBs he has had during the past several seasons as well as the rest of your post, especially that he will be helped by Moss drawing away coverage.

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

How is Tate progressing from his 2009 injury?

That's been a bit of a mystery. Tate's story is that he wasn't that hurt when he got placed on IR last year and he was surprised he did. Some people told me they thought he tore his ACL or MCL again and that he still isn't right yet (but they hope he will be by the start of the season). Some outlets said he had his knee scoped and cleaned out but it was nothing major. Bottom line, there's been nothing definitive. Either way, his experience has been minimal, so he's a wildcard as to what he may or may not do. Expect little but hope for the best . . .

I wasn't aware that there were any real reports saying Tate wasn't hurt? The only thing definitive I have read is the story from a paper in or near his home town (about 4-6 weeks ago). IIRC, the story was very positive in that he (Tate) mentioned he had the knee scoped and was feeling really good and supremely confident that he is ready to go. He is obviously a big question mark, but it could be a real boost to the Pats if this kid plays 16 games next year.

 

[AngryPatriot]

I never have an issue with this type of signing...the Pats have had a lot of success in the past with some signings that looked like an after-thought at the time. The problem I have (and Yudkn touched on it) is the Pats have been counting too much on these type of guys to be productive the last few years. Instead of being an added extra or quality depth guys like Holt, Galloway, Lewis, Baker, Springs and Burgess (to name a few) have been put in a position where if they don't succeed there's an issue. If the Pats had added a guy like Boldin than a signing like Holt could put their WR's over the top. Instead (as of now) the Pats are in a position where a guy like Holt or Crumpler needs to be productive because their respective positions are thin.

I agree with this but having not picked up one of the bigger names... this is a start. The TE position is a real concern and should be paramount imo but it just seems like they've practically tried to phase it out against all logic. Damn Ben Watson! lol I'd love to see Dez Bryant drop to the Pats and I also wouldn't be surprised if they target a TE in the 2nd round. And an RB and a pass rush... crap. They resigned Guyton! Anyho, a good hands TE could make a big difference to a guy like Holts effectiveness and hopefully add some creativity and venom back to the play calling. Half of Dallas Clark would be nice. Holts addition should bump Edelman up a bit and I think he will be very solid in PPR.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

I get the feeling this thread is going to get bumped a lot during the season.

 

[Louisville Slugger]

Per Tom Curran and the Boston Globe.Veteran WR Torry Holt to sign with PatriotsPosted by Shalise Manza Young, Globe Staff April 20, 2010 01:38 PM Torry Holt, a 12-year veteran receiver whose best days were as part of the Rams' "Greatest Show on Turf," will sign a one-year, $1.7 million deal with New England, according to a league source.Listed at 6 feet and 200 pounds, Holt spent last season with the Jaguars, with 51 receptions for 722 yards (14.2 yards per catch). During the first 10 seasons of his career, all in St. Louis, Holt averaged 87 catches per season; in the Super Bowl XXXVI loss to the Patriots, he recorded five grabs.Soon to be 34 years old, Holt provides more depth to a position needing it in New England.

This isn't a bad move for the Patriots at all. If Holt can have 51 catches and 722 yards for one of the worst offenses in the NFL there is no reason to believe that he won't equal or improve on those numbers if he is healthy in N.E.If on the other hand people are expecting the Tory Holt of 2001 they are going to be sadly disappointed. You could do a lot worse than having Holt as your 3rd/4th option.Lets hope the Pats can add a young stud through the draft.