Player Spotlight: Torry Holt (1 Viewer)

[Jason Wood]

2006 Player Spotlight Series

Over the course of the offseason, we will be evaluating a multitude of players at every fantasy position. One such way we go about that is through the Player Spotlight series. Think of the Spotlights as a permanent record on some of the more intriguing players for the upcoming season. Each Spotlight will be featured in an article on the main website.

Thread Topic: Torry Holt, WR, St. Louis Rams

Player Page Link: Torry Holt Player Page

Each article will include:

Detailed viewpoint from a Footballguys staff member
Highlighted member commentary from the message board threads
FBG Projections
Consensus Member ProjectionsThe Rules

In order for this thread to provide sustainable value, we ask that you follow a few simple guidelines:

Focus commentary on the player in question, and your expectations for said player
Back up your expectations in whatever manner you deem appropriate; avoid posts that simply say "I hate him" or "He's the best"
To be included in the final synopsis and consensus outlook, you MUST provide projections for the playerProjections should include (at a minimum):

For QBs: Passing Yards, Passing TDs, Ints, Rush Yards, Rush TDs
For RBs: Rushes, Rushing Yards, Rush TDs, Receptions, Receiving Yards, Receiving TDs
For WRs & TEs: Receptions, Receiving Yards, Receiving TDsBest of Luck and ENJOY!

 

[buster c]

he's pretty good.

take the average of his last three years and book it

 

[Philly Hater]

Holt is Mr. Consistent, and that's what it's all about for me. Steve Smith and Terrell Owens have a very good chance of putting up numbers that are better than Holt by a pretty good margin...but imo, they're just as likely to disappoint. Holt will be the top WR on my board.

95 rec

1420 yds

11 TD's

 

[Verbal Kint]

Pluses:

Consistent top 5 performer

The offense is more or less intact from prior years (sans Martz - see Cons)

At 30 he still has alot of tread on the tires

With Bruce getting long in the tooth he has an excellent array of complimentary receivers along with Curtis and McDonald, but no one to challenge him as the #1

Cons:

Martz is now in Detroit. The new coaching regime has promised a more balanced attack which may limit his touches

Conclusion:

The offensive chemistry is still intact. I'm not fearful that S-Jax getting more involved will hurt Holt's production.

110/1,400/10

 

[David Yudkin]

Pluses:Consistent top 5 performer

If ranking in the Top 5 once in 7 seasons translates into "consistent top 5 performer," then yes, I agree with you.IMO, Holt is a consistent Top 10 performer and should remain so. With Martz gone and Jackson on the way up (allegedly), I suspect the Rams will pass less and run more.The net result, as I see it, is that Holt will lose some targets and receptions. 95-1300-8.

 

[jakeadaniel]

Holt is a pretty safe bet because he is consisent. Even with the coaching changes, Holt should remain a top ten, and maybe even top five. BUT, my main concern with Holt is weeks 14 and 16. St. Loius is playing Chicago and Washington. Ouch! Sure Holt is a stud and you never sit your studs, but I'd draft someone else (imho).

95 REC, 1350 YDS, 9 TDS

Edited for spelling.

 

[Verbal Kint]

Pluses:

Consistent top 5 performer

If ranking in the Top 5 once in 7 seasons translates into "consistent top 5 performer," then yes, I agree with you.IMO, Holt is a consistent Top 10 performer and should remain so. With Martz gone and Jackson on the way up (allegedly), I suspect the Rams will pass less and run more.

The net result, as I see it, is that Holt will lose some targets and receptions. 95-1300-8.

Splitting hairs, IMHO. In addition to his one top 5 season, in 2000, 2001, 2004 and 2005 he ranked 7,8,7,6 respectively. The average difference in fantasy points between Holt and the #5 Wr for those years was ~5pts/season. So for 5 of the last 6 seasons he was either top 5 or within 5 total points of being in the top 5, with alot less deviation than some of the other Wrs that occupied a spot for one year (like Galloway in 2005)

 

[stbugs]

Pluses:

Consistent top 5 performer

If ranking in the Top 5 once in 7 seasons translates into "consistent top 5 performer," then yes, I agree with you.IMO, Holt is a consistent Top 10 performer and should remain so. With Martz gone and Jackson on the way up (allegedly), I suspect the Rams will pass less and run more.

The net result, as I see it, is that Holt will lose some targets and receptions. 95-1300-8.

Splitting hairs, IMHO. In addition to his one top 5 season, in 2000, 2001, 2004 and 2005 he ranked 7,8,7,6 respectively. The average difference in fantasy points between Holt and the #5 Wr for those years was ~5pts/season. So for 5 of the last 6 seasons he was either top 5 or within 5 total points of being in the top 5, with alot less deviation than some of the other Wrs that occupied a spot for one year (like Galloway in 2005)

Saying Holt is a top 5 WR is akin to saying Manning is the top QB. While Manning has never, ever been the #1 QB, he is still projected as such by FBGs.

There are always the guys who come out of nowhere and have Mushin Muhammad 2004 or Brady 2005 type seasons, but guys like Manning and Holt produce year in and year out even if sometimes they end up a couple points out of the top spot or top 5.

I looked at 2000-2005 and only 1 other WR has had as many top 8* finishes in that period as Holt (5 of 6) and that is Marvin Harrison (5 of 6). Moss and TO have both done it 4 times (out of 6). Other than that, most guys have done it 2 times at most. I would bet Chad and Boldin or Fitz become part of that elite group over time as Harrison drops out. In my book, that means over the past 6 years, Holt has been top 5.

*I picked top 8 just because I had to cut it off somewhere and that was the worst almost top 5 finish for Holt.

 

[joffer]

Pluses:

Consistent top 5 performer

If ranking in the Top 5 once in 7 seasons translates into "consistent top 5 performer," then yes, I agree with you.IMO, Holt is a consistent Top 10 performer and should remain so. With Martz gone and Jackson on the way up (allegedly), I suspect the Rams will pass less and run more.

The net result, as I see it, is that Holt will lose some targets and receptions. 95-1300-8.

ppr scoring, he's 4, 4, and 2 the last 3 years.92/1350/10

 

[David Yudkin]

Pluses:

Consistent top 5 performer

If ranking in the Top 5 once in 7 seasons translates into "consistent top 5 performer," then yes, I agree with you.IMO, Holt is a consistent Top 10 performer and should remain so. With Martz gone and Jackson on the way up (allegedly), I suspect the Rams will pass less and run more.

The net result, as I see it, is that Holt will lose some targets and receptions. 95-1300-8.

Splitting hairs, IMHO. In addition to his one top 5 season, in 2000, 2001, 2004 and 2005 he ranked 7,8,7,6 respectively. The average difference in fantasy points between Holt and the #5 Wr for those years was ~5pts/season. So for 5 of the last 6 seasons he was either top 5 or within 5 total points of being in the top 5, with alot less deviation than some of the other Wrs that occupied a spot for one year (like Galloway in 2005)

Saying Holt is a top 5 WR is akin to saying Manning is the top QB. While Manning has never, ever been the #1 QB, he is still projected as such by FBGs.

There are always the guys who come out of nowhere and have Mushin Muhammad 2004 or Brady 2005 type seasons, but guys like Manning and Holt produce year in and year out even if sometimes they end up a couple points out of the top spot or top 5.

I looked at 2000-2005 and only 1 other WR has had as many top 8* finishes in that period as Holt (5 of 6) and that is Marvin Harrison (5 of 6). Moss and TO have both done it 4 times (out of 6). Other than that, most guys have done it 2 times at most. I would bet Chad and Boldin or Fitz become part of that elite group over time as Harrison drops out. In my book, that means over the past 6 years, Holt has been top 5.

*I picked top 8 just because I had to cut it off somewhere and that was the worst almost top 5 finish for Holt.

Taking the actual RANKINGS out of the equation and setting things up as tiers instead, Holt has been in the Top tier of guys once. Scoring differential is way more important than the actual ranking.Here's how Holt has scored in comparison to the yearly WR1:

-34, -65, -83, -25, -41, -50

IMO, while he has had a decent, consistent track record, he has been a fair amount AWAY from ranking as the #1 WR.

 

[Crazy8s]

Pluses:

Consistent top 5 performer

If ranking in the Top 5 once in 7 seasons translates into "consistent top 5 performer," then yes, I agree with you.IMO, Holt is a consistent Top 10 performer and should remain so. With Martz gone and Jackson on the way up (allegedly), I suspect the Rams will pass less and run more.

The net result, as I see it, is that Holt will lose some targets and receptions. 95-1300-8.

ppr scoring, he's 4, 4, and 2 the last 3 years.92/1350/10

 

[joffer]

Pluses:

Consistent top 5 performer

If ranking in the Top 5 once in 7 seasons translates into "consistent top 5 performer," then yes, I agree with you.IMO, Holt is a consistent Top 10 performer and should remain so. With Martz gone and Jackson on the way up (allegedly), I suspect the Rams will pass less and run more.

The net result, as I see it, is that Holt will lose some targets and receptions. 95-1300-8.

Splitting hairs, IMHO. In addition to his one top 5 season, in 2000, 2001, 2004 and 2005 he ranked 7,8,7,6 respectively. The average difference in fantasy points between Holt and the #5 Wr for those years was ~5pts/season. So for 5 of the last 6 seasons he was either top 5 or within 5 total points of being in the top 5, with alot less deviation than some of the other Wrs that occupied a spot for one year (like Galloway in 2005)

Saying Holt is a top 5 WR is akin to saying Manning is the top QB. While Manning has never, ever been the #1 QB, he is still projected as such by FBGs.

There are always the guys who come out of nowhere and have Mushin Muhammad 2004 or Brady 2005 type seasons, but guys like Manning and Holt produce year in and year out even if sometimes they end up a couple points out of the top spot or top 5.

I looked at 2000-2005 and only 1 other WR has had as many top 8* finishes in that period as Holt (5 of 6) and that is Marvin Harrison (5 of 6). Moss and TO have both done it 4 times (out of 6). Other than that, most guys have done it 2 times at most. I would bet Chad and Boldin or Fitz become part of that elite group over time as Harrison drops out. In my book, that means over the past 6 years, Holt has been top 5.

*I picked top 8 just because I had to cut it off somewhere and that was the worst almost top 5 finish for Holt.

Taking the actual RANKINGS out of the equation and setting things up as tiers instead, Holt has been in the Top tier of guys once. Scoring differential is way more important than the actual ranking.Here's how Holt has scored in comparison to the yearly WR1:

-34, -65, -83, -25, -41, -50

IMO, while he has had a decent, consistent track record, he has been a fair amount AWAY from ranking as the #1 WR.

His 2003 total would have been good enough for WR1 in 1999, 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2005. However, I don't think he has WR1 capability with Martz gone.

 

[zamboni]

However, I don't think he has WR1 capability with Martz gone.

Many thought that with Chad Johnson when Marvin Lewis arrived. If a WR is that good like Holt, he'll produce.

 

[David Yudkin]

However, I don't think he has WR1 capability with Martz gone.

Many thought that with Chad Johnson when Marvin Lewis arrived. If a WR is that good like Holt, he'll produce.

If I am reading joffer right, I think he is saying that Holt does not have fantasy #1 WR overall potential in him this year.

 

[Armando]

You people trying to downplay Holt's consistency are really reaching for straws here.

Not a Holt owner, but I'd love to be one. He's got a QB which he's got years of experience with. Produced with a nobody at QB (Fitzpatrick). What more do you want?

 

[David Yudkin]

You people trying to downplay Holt's consistency are really reaching for straws here.

Not a Holt owner, but I'd love to be one. He's got a QB which he's got years of experience with. Produced with a nobody at QB (Fitzpatrick). What more do you want?

The issue is not so much that Holt is a risky pick or if he will bomb. The question becomes when is he a good pick? WR1? WR5? WR8? He is pretty bankable in terms of what is range will be, but as already shown he may not get back what the investment may be. Everyone views that differently, of course, and the line in the sand may revolve upon if you would rather have Holt or a RB2 in that slot (or a QB or TE for the truly brave drafters out there).Again, the difference in picks in the second round may not be that huge as an impact one way or another. IMO, several WR will put up numbers similar to Holt's. In a 0 PPR league, I do expect him to dropoff slightly. Does that make him a bad pick? Of course not. Could there be better options out there? There could be, but that may vary from draft to draft.

Holt certainly has value in that it is very unlikely that he falls out of the Top 15 barring serious injury. There are guys that ranked above him that IMO will fall WAY MORE than Holt ever would, so there is something to be said for stability.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

IMO, Holt is a consistent Top 10 performer and should remain so. With Martz gone and Jackson on the way up (allegedly), I suspect the Rams will pass less and run more.

To the detriment of Isaac Bruce and Jackson (receptions wise).100 recepts, 1500 yards 11 TDs

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Pluses:

Consistent top 5 performer

If ranking in the Top 5 once in 7 seasons translates into "consistent top 5 performer," then yes, I agree with you.

Using top anything is usually deceptive at best.In 2003, he finished 2nd. Him and Moss lapped the fantasy WR field PPG wise.

In 2004, he finished 7th. Ignoring for a second the offensive explosion that happened that year, he was a whopping 9FP away from the 3rd place finisher.

In 2005, he finished 6th... in 14 games. Give him those extra two games and he was on pace for a clear 2nd place.

Every year the last three years, Holt is a first tier receiver. In 2004, tier 1 was bigger than usual, so he doesn't look as good if all you do is look at his final ranking.

In 2005 he was a tier one receiver again except for the injury. He has no significant history of injury, so that's not exactly something I'm worried about.

His surge up the fantasy ladder came exactly the same time Faulk started his decline. He is the best WR on that team right now and Linehan will get him the ball. Bruce is still good enough to keep defenses honest. I don't see Jackson having a Faulk like 80+ receptions.

Whether or not he can finish #1 overall remains to be seen, but it's not like eyeballs will pop out of heads in astonishment if he does. He has a better chance than most to finish at the top of that 1st tier.

 

[David Yudkin]

Pluses:

Consistent top 5 performer

If ranking in the Top 5 once in 7 seasons translates into "consistent top 5 performer," then yes, I agree with you.

Using top anything is usually deceptive at best.In 2003, he finished 2nd. Him and Moss lapped the fantasy WR field PPG wise.

In 2004, he finished 7th. Ignoring for a second the offensive explosion that happened that year, he was a whopping 9FP away from the 3rd place finisher.

In 2005, he finished 6th... in 14 games. Give him those extra two games and he was on pace for a clear 2nd place.

Every year the last three years, Holt is a first tier receiver. In 2004, tier 1 was bigger than usual, so he doesn't look as good if all you do is look at his final ranking.

In 2005 he was a tier one receiver again except for the injury. He has no significant history of injury, so that's not exactly something I'm worried about.

His surge up the fantasy ladder came exactly the same time Faulk started his decline. He is the best WR on that team right now and Linehan will get him the ball. Bruce is still good enough to keep defenses honest. I don't see Jackson having a Faulk like 80+ receptions.

Whether or not he can finish #1 overall remains to be seen, but it's not like eyeballs will pop out of heads in astonishment if he does. He has a better chance than most to finish at the top of that 1st tier.

As I already posted, Holt has ranked within 25 points of the #1 receiver once--and that was exactly 25 points behind.As I see it, he only had one season in that uber top tier and for where he gets drafted that's where he really needs to be. part of the issue here is that there are usual guys that can be had way later that can score more than or near Holt. That's not an indictment of Holt, only that there are guys that could produce decent numbers.

By comparison, there are only so many RB to go around, and if the choice is a decent RB or a decent WR, the fact remains there are only so many RB to go around. To be clear, I am NOT advocating taking a RB just to take a RB but if there is a RB with a great shot at being productive I'd probably take him instead of Holt (based on where Holt gets drafted). In a PPR league, Holt usually is worth the spot he gets taken in, so I don't really have an issue where he goes there.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

By comparison, there are only so many RB to go around, and if the choice is a decent RB or a decent WR, the fact remains there are only so many RB to go around. To be clear, I am NOT advocating taking a RB just to take a RB but if there is a RB with a great shot at being productive I'd probably take him instead of Holt (based on where Holt gets drafted). In a PPR league, Holt usually is worth the spot he gets taken in, so I don't really have an issue where he goes there.

At ADP#19 it's interesting. He's behind pretty much behind any worthwhile RB you can think of, but ahead of the Julius Jones, Kevin Jones types.

 

[David Yudkin]

By comparison, there are only so many RB to go around, and if the choice is a decent RB or a decent WR, the fact remains there are only so many RB to go around.  To be clear, I am NOT advocating taking a RB just to take a RB but if there is a RB with a great shot at being productive I'd probably take him instead of Holt (based on where Holt gets drafted).  In a PPR league, Holt usually is worth the spot he gets taken in, so I don't really have an issue where he goes there.

At ADP#19 it's interesting. He's behind pretty much behind any worthwhile RB you can think of, but ahead of the Julius Jones, Kevin Jones types.

He has gone Top 15 in my leagues (even in the first round), so I guess a lot depends on each league.

 

[stbugs]

Pluses:

Consistent top 5 performer

If ranking in the Top 5 once in 7 seasons translates into "consistent top 5 performer," then yes, I agree with you.

Using top anything is usually deceptive at best.In 2003, he finished 2nd. Him and Moss lapped the fantasy WR field PPG wise.

In 2004, he finished 7th. Ignoring for a second the offensive explosion that happened that year, he was a whopping 9FP away from the 3rd place finisher.

In 2005, he finished 6th... in 14 games. Give him those extra two games and he was on pace for a clear 2nd place.

Every year the last three years, Holt is a first tier receiver. In 2004, tier 1 was bigger than usual, so he doesn't look as good if all you do is look at his final ranking.

In 2005 he was a tier one receiver again except for the injury. He has no significant history of injury, so that's not exactly something I'm worried about.

His surge up the fantasy ladder came exactly the same time Faulk started his decline. He is the best WR on that team right now and Linehan will get him the ball. Bruce is still good enough to keep defenses honest. I don't see Jackson having a Faulk like 80+ receptions.

Whether or not he can finish #1 overall remains to be seen, but it's not like eyeballs will pop out of heads in astonishment if he does. He has a better chance than most to finish at the top of that 1st tier.

As I already posted, Holt has ranked within 25 points of the #1 receiver once--and that was exactly 25 points behind.As I see it, he only had one season in that uber top tier and for where he gets drafted that's where he really needs to be. part of the issue here is that there are usual guys that can be had way later that can score more than or near Holt. That's not an indictment of Holt, only that there are guys that could produce decent numbers.

By comparison, there are only so many RB to go around, and if the choice is a decent RB or a decent WR, the fact remains there are only so many RB to go around. To be clear, I am NOT advocating taking a RB just to take a RB but if there is a RB with a great shot at being productive I'd probably take him instead of Holt (based on where Holt gets drafted). In a PPR league, Holt usually is worth the spot he gets taken in, so I don't really have an issue where he goes there.

OK, well then using your logic, Ladanian Tomlinson is not a top tier RB. He has only ranked once within 19 points of the #1 RB in 2004.In 2001, LT was -121.

In 2002, LT was -66.

In 2003, LT was -29.

In 2004, LT was -19.

In 2005, LT was -46.

If you look at 2000-2005 again in terms of total points, it seems to me that Holt is clearly in the top tier:

Tier 1

---------

Harrison - 1283

R. Moss - 1181

TO - 1166

Holt - 1160

Tier 2

---------

Rod Smith - 984

Ward - 929

C. Johnson - 768 (5 years, 2001-2005)

J. Smith - 895

Boldin - 445 (3 years, but double it and he is in Tier 2)

Mason - 880

Bruce - 871

Chambers - 719 (5 years)

D. Jackson - 773

S. Moss - 569 (5 years)

S. Smith - 525 (5 years)

Galloway - 577

Edit to Add: Not trying to be snippy, but for the past 6 years, I think it is pretty easy to consider Holt in the top tier. Like LT, who has never finished higher than the #3 RB, he is consistent enough to be a top tier over time.

 

[Homey]

However, I don't think he has WR1 capability with Martz gone.

Many thought that with Chad Johnson when Marvin Lewis arrived. If a WR is that good like Holt, he'll produce.

I dont get the "martz gone" logic when you have Scott Linehan as the new HC. While there will be a more balanced attack, Linehan has been at the helm of several offenses that produced big WR and QB #'s . . . Moss/Culpepper two years ago and the emergence of Chris Chambers with no QB last season in MIA.I have Holt as my #1 WR.

 

[David Yudkin]

OK, well then using your logic, Ladanian Tomlinson is not a top tier RB. He has only ranked once within 19 points of the #1 RB in 2004.

We're certainly not going to change anyone's opinion on these numbers, but there is a sizable difference here in that in a good year elite RB can outscore elite WR (in 0 PPR leagues) by 50-75%.On a % basis, LT has scored pretty well compared to the #1 RB. Even in being the #3 RB the past 4 years, HE'S STILL LIGHT YEARS AWAY from the pack of other RB.Number of RB below LT that scored within 50 points of him:2005: 22004: 42003: 12002: 5Number of WR below Holt that tranked with 50 points of him:2005: 142004: 182003: 12002: 24Which season is not like the others?Again, there is something to be said for stability, and that gets Holt brownie points. I still don't know where a good spot to take him is, as a lot depnds on the league, the draft, and the scoring system.

 

[joffer]

However, I don't think he has WR1 capability with Martz gone.

Many thought that with Chad Johnson when Marvin Lewis arrived. If a WR is that good like Holt, he'll produce.

If I am reading joffer right, I think he is saying that Holt does not have fantasy #1 WR overall potential in him this year.

yes, sorry that was confusing. He's still a solid top 5 guy, and I have him ranked at #4 myself. However, with Martz gone I don't think the run/pass ratio will be so lopsided, and Holt's chances to finish as the top ranked WR decrease.

 

[Tau837]

As I see it, he only had one season in that uber top tier and for where he gets drafted that's where he really needs to be. part of the issue here is that there are usual guys that can be had way later that can score more than or near Holt. That's not an indictment of Holt, only that there are guys that could produce decent numbers.

Cool. Why don't you just tell us who those guys are and we'll draft them instead. TIA.

 

[David Yudkin]

As I see it, he only had one season in that uber top tier and for where he gets drafted that's where he really needs to be.  part of the issue here is that there are usual guys that can be had way later that can score more than or near Holt.  That's not an indictment of Holt, only that there are guys that could produce decent numbers.

Cool. Why don't you just tell us who those guys are and we'll draft them instead. TIA.

The 5 guys I hyped all offseason at WR were Steve Smith (WR1), Joey Galloway (WR5), Terry Glenn (WR12), Donald Driver (WR13), and Eddie Kennison (WR18). Looking at one of my drafts: Holt (2nd WR selected), Smith (12), Driver (22), Kennison (29), Glenn (44), Galloway (54). Those guys all panned out, but the point was not so much not thumping my chest for hyping gyuys that did well but but showing that you can find decent WR options if you study things closely enough.

My point in the above post was more with regard to relativity. While people bash the stud RB strategy, it does have it's merits. How many Top 10 or Top 20 RB can be had at the point these WR were selected.

And again, I am not bashing Holt or drafting Holt, only that he normally comes in at below where he gets drafted. That's not the worst thing in the world but it's probably not the best outcome either.

 

[stbugs]

OK, well then using your logic, Ladanian Tomlinson is not a top tier RB. He has only ranked once within 19 points of the #1 RB in 2004.

We're certainly not going to change anyone's opinion on these numbers, but there is a sizable difference here in that in a good year elite RB can outscore elite WR (in 0 PPR leagues) by 50-75%.On a % basis, LT has scored pretty well compared to the #1 RB. Even in being the #3 RB the past 4 years, HE'S STILL LIGHT YEARS AWAY from the pack of other RB.

Number of RB below LT that scored within 50 points of him:

2005: 2

2004: 4

2003: 1

2002: 5

Number of WR below Holt that tranked with 50 points of him:

2005: 14

2004: 18

2003: 1

2002: 24

Which season is not like the others?

Again, there is something to be said for stability, and that gets Holt brownie points. I still don't know where a good spot to take him is, as a lot depnds on the league, the draft, and the scoring system.

I understand, but you still have to look at the actual WRs. WRs have a lot more flashes, i.e. guys who have had 1 top 10 season and never do it again.My LT reference was more of a retort in that if you looked at the "top tier" of receivers between 2000-2005, Holt is in the top tier with Moss, TO and Harrison. To me, that makes him a top 4 WR from 2000-2005, way above the second tier of WRs by at least 20%.

I don't care about every year's rank, because LT has been considered the #1 or #2 RB for the past few years and he hasn't ever been better than #3 in any one year. LT's value has been his consistency year after year, just like Holt. He hasn't pulled a Holmes and missed half the year.

You can't base a consistent player's value on the fact that he has only been top 5 once in the last 6 years. By that argument, Santana Moss, Joe Horn, Muhammad, Joey Galloway, Hines Ward, Eric Moulds and Rod Smith would be in the same bucket as Holt. If you look at my post above, none of those guys are even in the same ballpark as Holt's overall results.

Again, we probably aren't disagreeing as I wouldn't take Holt too early, but until Holt falls off the wagon, I would rather have a rock solid WR1 than a risky RB2 (like the Jones, etc.). Like you said, it is just a decision on where to draft him.

 

[David Yudkin]

By that argument, Santana Moss, Joe Horn, Muhammad, Joey Galloway, Hines Ward, Eric Moulds and Rod Smith would be in the same bucket as Holt.

Not the same for fantasy purposes in my book. All these other guys were available later and could produce a profit in most years. Holt historically has run at a loss (ranking worse than where he was drafted). From a value persepective, if you are lucky you get back what you paid for him. Again, that may not always be a terrible outcome, but if there is someone on the board that I feel strongly can earn a profit, that may be where I go.I find it interesting that the other guy of similar nature is Manning, as he has been very consistent and always near (but not at the top) at his position, yet the suggestion of taking him early causes chaos and pandemonium.

 

[renesauz]

The question here doesn't seem to be whether he'll produce, or even to what level he'll produce (top ten almost a lock, top 5 probable, top 1 or 2 certainly possible), but when to draft him.

AS several have pointed out, one year wonders always come out of nowhere in the recievers, and there's always a couple guys taken in the middle of the pack who end up in the top ten.

The consensus opinion is that he's consistent enough to be in AT LEAST the top 5 WR's taken.

To me, considering relative depth at WR, that makes him a late second round pick, at the earliest.

95/1280/12

 

[stbugs]

By that argument, Santana Moss, Joe Horn, Muhammad, Joey Galloway, Hines Ward, Eric Moulds and Rod Smith would be in the same bucket as Holt.

Not the same for fantasy purposes in my book. All these other guys were available later and could produce a profit in most years. Holt historically has run at a loss (ranking worse than where he was drafted). From a value persepective, if you are lucky you get back what you paid for him. Again, that may not always be a terrible outcome, but if there is someone on the board that I feel strongly can earn a profit, that may be where I go.I find it interesting that the other guy of similar nature is Manning, as he has been very consistent and always near (but not at the top) at his position, yet the suggestion of taking him early causes chaos and pandemonium.

While those guys would produce a profit, there is something to be said for not screwing up early. That is where guys like Holt, Manning (except last year getting drafted in the 1st round because of 2004) and LT fit in. Maybe TO, Culpepper and Holmes have bigger upside, but as seen in 2005, sometimes the guys with the biggest upsides come crashing down.In 2005, when you were deciding on picking Holt, it wasn't the point in the draft that Galloway, Santana Moss or Steve Smith were even being considered. Holt was being compared to Horn, TO, Moss, Harrison and CJ, all of which Holt ended up being a better value than in 2005.

By the way, I keep forgetting to mention that I am in a PPR league. I just checked and in PPR, Holt finished 4th in 2005, 4th in 2004, and 2nd in 2003, so maybe that is why I also see him as top 5 material.

Also, it seems like a lot of leagues start 3 WRs, like mine, and that also edges WR premiums up over start 2 leagues. As for Manning, I was happy to see him taken well before I took Holt last year!

 

[David Yudkin]

By the way, I keep forgetting to mention that I am in a PPR league. I just checked and in PPR, Holt finished 4th in 2005, 4th in 2004, and 2nd in 2003, so maybe that is why I also see him as top 5 material.

I mentioned several times that Holt in PPR leagues was a different story.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Saying Holt is a top 5 WR is akin to saying Manning is the top QB. While Manning has never, ever been the #1 QB, he is still projected as such by FBGs.

Scoring leagues where all TD's get 6 points has Manning number 1 in 2003 and 2004. 2004 could be by a good margin if you don't count week 17 that is usually a non used week.

 

[Tau837]

In 2005, when you were deciding on picking Holt, it wasn't the point in the draft that Galloway, Santana Moss or Steve Smith were even being considered. Holt was being compared to Horn, TO, Moss, Harrison and CJ, all of which Holt ended up being a better value than in 2005.

Deciding whether there is value in spending the required pick to get Holt is a different conversation than discussing whether Holt is a top tier WR. I think we started talking about the latter, but David then evolved into discussing the former.I don't see there being any dispute that Holt is a top tier receiver. That doesn't mean I'd plan to spend a second round pick to get him... that is a draft philosophy decision.

 

[Verbal Kint]

In 2005, when you were deciding on picking Holt, it wasn't the point in the draft that Galloway, Santana Moss or Steve Smith were even being considered. Holt was being compared to Horn, TO, Moss, Harrison and CJ, all of which Holt ended up being a better value than in 2005.

Deciding whether there is value in spending the required pick to get Holt is a different conversation than discussing whether Holt is a top tier WR. I think we started talking about the latter, but David then evolved into discussing the former.

I don't see there being any dispute that Holt is a top tier receiver. That doesn't mean I'd plan to spend a second round pick to get him... that is a draft philosophy decision.