What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Torry Holt is overvalued (1 Viewer)

jwvdcw

Footballguy
Just a friendly reminder here from jwvdcw....-remember that Holt was never considered a top 5 WR, yet alone a top 3 WR, before this year. He was always a consensus top 10 guy, but never a super stud. HE HAD ONE AMAZING YEAR OF SUPER STUD STATUS. That doesn't remotely compare to guys like Moss and Harrison. Didn't David Boston also have that one awesome year and made the big 3 into the big 4 for a year just like Holt is doing now(2 to 3)-With Jackson in the backfield along with Faulk now, I'm guessing that all goaline situations will focus on the run, which could hurt Holt's TD numbers.-Remember Bulger still doesn't seem to inspire much confidence in the coaching staff. And now they have no solid backup with Warner gone. I'm not saying he'll be a total bust, but I much rather have C Johnson or Ward a few picks later than Holt in the late 2nd.

 
i wouldnt ..holt has always been awesome just never got the tds....no he has and is bulgers favorite target so i see another double digit season from him thats why hes number 2 on my wr list...plus harrisons production slipped last year as hes getting older and they spread it around alot and i wouldnt be surprised if he went lower this year :brush:

 
The reason his numbers weren't as big in past years is that he was surronded by a load of talented recievers. While he still has good recievers Bruce is older and Looker and others are good compliments to Holt but he is the man in a High Powered offense.

 
I will say this regarding Holt. As long as Marshall Faulk is healthy, Holt will RELATIVELY disappoint. Holt got a lot of TDs last year because he is the number one offensive threat ..... when Faulk is not playing. He will underperform where he is being drafted. That said, he's still number 3 on my board.

 
I'm not too worried about Holt. He actually leads the NFL in receiving yardage over the last four seasons. 1635 yds 6 tds1363 yds 7 tds1302 yds 4 tds1696 yds 12 tdsMartz did get gunshy in the playoffs but Holt just had his best season with Bulger at the helm and now Bulger gets to work as a starter in training camp for the first time.If Faulk is healthy for 16 games I'd drop Holt yardage back to the 1300 range but hold his TDs steady. Only one of Holt's 12 TDs were less than 7 yards and that TD was scored with Faulk playing so Torry wasn't catching a bunch of 3 yards slants or fades for scores. If Faulk is hurt, I'd guess Holt has a shot at 1450+ again.I have Torry over Harrison at #2 in my rankings since I think Harrison's numbers have peaked. Marvin used to get an obscene amount of looks because Indy didn't have a quality #2. Now Manning has the best #2 and TE tandem he's had in his career and showed last year that he's willing to spread the ball around rather than force feeding Harrison at every turn.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ricky Prohel and the Az were always good for 3-4 scores, along w/the 6 or so Ike would produceAdd Faulk's ~20 combined, and there weren't a whole lot of TD's leftHe posted nice #'s in '00 and '01, struggled alittle in '02, as the Rams did as a whole, then came back nicely in '03I'm figuring 1500/10 for Holt, #2 just behind Moss (1550/12)

 
I agree with ravenzfan Looker and Curtis are not looking like Az and Prohel to me. Ike is slipping now and Holt looks like option one and 3 for the Lambs. Faulk aint what he used to be either.Holts total yardage might slip some and perhaps his TDs a bit but I am not seeing any reason for a steep drop. Predicting increased running inside the red zone because of Steven Jackson? Maybe if Martz got canned but he is still the head coach and he sure likes passing the ball.

 
I worry about Holt's 2003 TD output being a fluke as well. He caught 11 TDs in 2001 and 2002 and then exceeded that output in a single season. That could be a positive trend or it could be a one-year wonder type of deal. I think in terms of receptions and yardage he'll continue to be a monster which makes him well worth a high ranking at WR. But I do think his TDs are going to come down (keep in mind the Rams have a lot of young WRs they are hoping can develop who could help them get more productive in 3- and 4-WR sets) and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he failed to reach double figures again. I currently have him ranked 3rd among the WRs, but a notch below Moss and Harrison because I'm not convinced he'll be a lock for 10-plus TDs like I believe those two are.

 
Just a friendly reminder here from jwvdcw....
-remember that Holt was never considered a top 5 WR, yet alone a top 3 WR, before this year. He was always a consensus top 10 guy, but never a super stud. HE HAD ONE AMAZING YEAR OF SUPER STUD STATUS.
I think you are overstating the one year wonder factor. In 2000, he was 4 fantasy points out of the top 5 (Derrick Alexander was #5 with 204 fantasy points, Holt had 200 at WR7). In 2001, he was 10 fantasy points out of the top 5 (Moss had 188 at WR5, Holt had 178).
That doesn't remotely compare to guys like Moss and Harrison. Didn't David Boston also have that one awesome year and made the big 3 into the big 4 for a year just like Holt is doing now(2 to 3).
First of all, I haven't seen anyone suggesting Holt has outperformed Moss and/or Harrison. However, only those two and Owens have been consistently better than Holt over the past 4 seasons.To compare him to David Boston is laughable. Boston only had one season in which he reached 1200 yards. Holt has been over 1300 for 4 straight seasons. On top of that, Holt has not missed a game and has been a class act on and off the field. No worries about him playing every Sunday.
-With Jackson in the backfield along with Faulk now, I'm guessing that all goaline situations will focus on the run, which could hurt Holt's TD numbers.
Key word = guessing.Last season, Holt had 27 targets in the red zone, resulting in 5 TDs. I agree that odds are that number will drop. That said, suppose you remove all 5 TDs, along with the maximum 100 yards for those 5 catches. Last season, that still would have left him ranked as WR2.
-Remember Bulger still doesn't seem to inspire much confidence in the coaching staff. And now they have no solid backup with Warner gone.
How concerned can they be given that they just let Warner walk, didn't sign another QB, and signed Bulger to a 4 year contract worth ~$19 million, with a 9 million signing bonus?And the guy threw for 3845 yards and 22 TDs last season in 15 games. How is that bad for Holt?
I'm not saying he'll be a total bust, but I much rather have C Johnson or Ward a few picks later than Holt in the late 2nd.
If you are saying that in a given draft you could either pick Holt or pick another player and pick Johnson/Ward with your next pick, I might agree... but I would have to assess Holt + later pick vs. alternate pick + Johnson/Ward.If you are saying you would trade down a few spots and take Johnson/Ward instead of taking Holt with your original pick, I would probably agree, assuming you get something of value for trading down.But in the vast majority of cases, I doubt you can pass on Holt and then get Johnson/Ward with your next pick. In that case, your example doesn't hold.
 
I agree with ravenzfan Looker and Curtis are not looking like Az and Prohel to me. Ike is slipping now and Holt looks like option one and 3 for the Lambs. Faulk aint what he used to be either.Holts total yardage might slip some and perhaps his TDs a bit but I am not seeing any reason for a steep drop. Predicting increased running inside the red zone because of Steven Jackson? Maybe if Martz got canned but he is still the head coach and he sure likes passing the ball.
:pigskinp:
 
remember that Holt was never considered a top 5 WR, yet alone a top 3 WR, before this year. He was always a consensus top 10 guy, but never a super stud.
I respectfully disagree having drafted Torry Holt in a dynasty league as a rookie. I've always considered him a top 5 fantasy WR since his first breakout season (his 2nd year in the league). Maybe I'm the salmon swimming up the stream though, but it's worked for me. So, take that for what it's worth I guess.
 
I agree with ravenzfan Looker and Curtis are not looking like Az and Prohel to me.
Actually, Looker looked a lot like Proehl: Looker 2003: 47-495-3 Proehl 2002: 43-446-4 Proehl 2001: 40-563-5 Proehl 2000: 31-441-4 Not a lot of difference there.
 
Holt in 2003First 8 games: 978 yards, 9 tdsLast 8 games: 718 yards, 3 tds
Project his second-half output over the course of a full season and you'll see numbers comperable to what he produced in 2001 and 2002.
 
Excellent points but there still seems to be no heir to past #s from Hakim.1999 36 catches 677 yards 8 TD2000 53 catches 734 yards 4 TD2001 39 catches 374 yards 3 TDI only bring these #s up to show how these #s could have been distributed to Holt or Bruce. Bruce had a uptick in production in 2002 the 1st year after Hakim left but now it seems that he has slid again and the bulk of the work is going to Holt now.Torry Holt 2003 190 targets 11.9/game 31% of all passing targets a # that actualy could even increase.But as I said I could see his #s falling slightly from thier 2003 levels. Just not enough for me to consider Holt overvalued which was the fishing expedition premise of this post.I like Chad Johnson and Hines Ward to do well in 2004 also. But I do not see them offering more value than Holt does. They will all be drafted in the same range but I think that will be a tough case for them to dramaticly outperform him.

 
13 User(s) are reading this topic (5 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)8 Members: Sir Psycho, beto, Footballhead, Holy Schneikes, DonnyT33, Squirrels, Otis, Zaphod

 
He is a victim of his success last year. This happens to a lot of players. He was undervalued last year because of lack of TDs. This year he will be slightly overvalued because he finally got the TDs.

 
I agree with ravenzfan Looker and Curtis are not looking like Az and Prohel to me. Ike is slipping now and Holt looks like option one and 3 for the Lambs. Faulk aint what he used to be either.Holts total yardage might slip some and perhaps his TDs a bit but I am not seeing any reason for a steep drop. Predicting increased running inside the red zone because of Steven Jackson? Maybe if Martz got canned but he is still the head coach and he sure likes passing the ball.
All this talk af Steven Jackson huh? What about Gordon and Harris who know the very compicated systen the Rams run? Did they fall off the planet I say Jackson's learning curve lasts 2-3 years. Talk to me about him in 06. The rams will be in high scoring games just about every week this year as there defense has taken a big fall. Becasue of that there offensive numbers will be good. Holt is a yardage eater and now seeing looks in the red zone, he's a stud WR. Top 3-4 for sure. The problem with the Rams is Mike Martz, guys like him are just not fit to be head coach's IMO, they need to do what he does best, OC run the offense and that's all. head coaching in the NFL now takes a certain who can handle all aspects of the game, not just one. Watch for the Rams O-line and run game to dominate this year and put up lots of points.
 
I will say this regarding Holt. As long as Marshall Faulk is healthy, Holt will RELATIVELY disappoint. Holt got a lot of TDs last year because he is the number one offensive threat ..... when Faulk is not playing.
True, Faulk being in means Holts' TDs tend to drop off some. But since Faulk is a near-lock to miss time this year (like most years)...and as he gets older, the likelihood of such an injury and length of time he's out will probably tend to increase...Holt looks very promising for another year of many yards and a respectable handful of TDs. Not sure I'd go as far as Top 3 until I see another big year, but he's very close.
 
13 User(s) are reading this topic (5 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)8 Members: Sir Psycho, beto, Footballhead, Holy Schneikes, DonnyT33, Squirrels, Otis, Zaphod
PS I give up and am bored enough to bother asking: is there some cutesy fbg insider joke I missed somewhere that would make these kind of posts at least remotely meaningful in some way? maybe it's a way of saying "I have nothing whatsoever to add" or something similarly clever?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have followed Holt since his days at NC State and his rookie year in the NFL. Something about him even back then made me really want to keep my eye on this guy. The really frustrating thing about him was not his production, but the fact that the Rams spread the ball around a LOT, and Faulk was tearing it up.This days are behind us. They aren't the "Greatest Show On Turf" anymore. They still have some life in them, but Faulk's days are numbered. Perhaps Jackson can bring them back to the good ol' days of 1999-2001, perhaps not.But in the meantime, Holt has stepped up. I was overjoyed to see him get double digit TDs. I thought it was about fricken' time. He has always gotten gobs of yards, but not the TDs. With Bruce starting to fade, and Faulk being injury prone and not quite the focus he was before, someone needs to keep it up - and Holt is just the man to do it.

 
There was a lot made last year about the way Holt approached the season. He supposedly did much more preparation in terms of watching (studying) tape and improving his route running. This may be the primary reason for the increased production. I owned Holt last year and watched many of the Rams games. The amount of separation Holt was getting from defenders was astounding. The commitment to Bulger will likely continue to help Holt as well. There was no doubt that Bruce was Warner's primary target.

 
I'll take a 85-100 reception, 14-1600 yard, 6-8 TD receiver with upside as soon as Moss and Harrison are off the board.CJohn soon after for similar reasons.

 
-remember that Holt was never considered a top 5 WR, yet alone a top 3 WR, before this year.
I had him ranked #4 last year.
Oh yeah - and I had him in my top-5 the last two years. I saw 1600 yards and 4 TDs as an aberration that could only mean more TDs. I see 1600 yards producing 12 TDs much more likely than only 4.
 
Oh yeah - and I had him in my top-5 the last two years. I saw 1600 yards and 4 TDs as an aberration that could only mean more TDs. I see 1600 yards producing 12 TDs much more likely than only 4.
Exactly. packersfan mentioned above that Holt's high TD output last year could be a trend or just a one-year phenomenon. I think it's neither. It's just a normal TD output for a 1300+ yard receiver. It's the low TD totals in previous years that were somewhat flukey.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh yeah - and I had him in my top-5 the last two years.  I saw 1600 yards and 4 TDs as an aberration that could only mean more TDs. I see 1600 yards producing 12 TDs much more likely than only 4.
Exactly. packersfan mentioned above that Holt's high TD output last year could be a trend or just a one-year phenomenon. I think it's neither. It's just a normal TD output for a 1300+ yard receiver. It's the low TD totals in previous years that were somewhat flukey.
Possibly. My concern there would be what you believe to be flukey has happened far more frequently in Holt's career than what he did last season. To this point in his career, a typical Holt season does not include many TDs. Until he can consistently prove otherwise, the conservative approach is to proceed as if he won't duplicate or exceed his TD output from last season and to expect a decline - even if it's relatively minor.
 
13 User(s) are reading this topic (5 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)8 Members: Sir Psycho, beto, Footballhead, Holy Schneikes, DonnyT33, Squirrels, Otis, Zaphod
PS I give up and am bored enough to bother asking: is there some cutesy fbg insider joke I missed somewhere that would make these kind of posts at least remotely meaningful in some way? maybe it's a way of saying "I have nothing whatsoever to add" or something similarly clever?
I've been wondering this too.Seems pointless.
 
13 User(s) are reading this topic (5 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)8 Members: Sir Psycho, beto, Footballhead, Holy Schneikes, DonnyT33, Squirrels, Otis, Zaphod
PS I give up and am bored enough to bother asking: is there some cutesy fbg insider joke I missed somewhere that would make these kind of posts at least remotely meaningful in some way? maybe it's a way of saying "I have nothing whatsoever to add" or something similarly clever?
When jwvdcw does it in someone else's thread, it's not cutesy or meaningful in any way I'm aware of. Just random.But when someone else does it in one of jwvdcw's threads, it is a cutesy fbg insider joke.
 
Oh yeah - and I had him in my top-5 the last two years.  I saw 1600 yards and 4 TDs as an aberration that could only mean more TDs. I see 1600 yards producing 12 TDs much more likely than only 4.
Exactly. packersfan mentioned above that Holt's high TD output last year could be a trend or just a one-year phenomenon. I think it's neither. It's just a normal TD output for a 1300+ yard receiver. It's the low TD totals in previous years that were somewhat flukey.
Possibly. My concern there would be what you believe to be flukey has happened far more frequently in Holt's career than what he did last season. To this point in his career, a typical Holt season does not include many TDs. Until he can consistently prove otherwise, the conservative approach is to proceed as if he won't duplicate or exceed his TD output from last season and to expect a decline - even if it's relatively minor.
"Far more frequently" - ummm, what?Four years of data, two where he got 6 and 7 TDs, 1 with 4 TDs and 1 with 12 TDs and you can project "far more frequently" from that?A better argument might be he has averaged 7 TDs per year for his career, so expecting more than that is probably the aberration. 4 TDs AND 12 TDs are both the aberrations at this point - and a return to the 6-7-8 TD range is more likely based on his averages over 5 years.That said, a 13-1600 yard receiver with 6-8 TDs should be drafted fairly high, and with the upside existent in Holt to get more TDs than that, there is really not a lot to fear drafting him unless you are in a TD-only league.
 
13 User(s) are reading this topic (5 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)8 Members: Sir Psycho, beto, Footballhead, Holy Schneikes, DonnyT33, Squirrels, Otis, Zaphod
PS I give up and am bored enough to bother asking: is there some cutesy fbg insider joke I missed somewhere that would make these kind of posts at least remotely meaningful in some way? maybe it's a way of saying "I have nothing whatsoever to add" or something similarly clever?
When jwvdcw does it in someone else's thread, it's not cutesy or meaningful in any way I'm aware of. Just random.But when someone else does it in one of jwvdcw's threads, it is a cutesy fbg insider joke.
:thumbup: Exactly.I also think we should start a poll on this topic.
 
I say Jackson's learning curve lasts 2-3 years.
If it takes him 2-3 years to learn the RB position he is ######ed.RB is the easiest position to learn, and no one outside of Corky would take 2-3 years to learn it we'll enough to step in and produce if they are talented enough. Also Stephen Jackson is thought of as a very bright individual. He got good grades through high school and college and he comes from a solid successful family. He isn't ######ed, therefore there is no way he needs 2-3 years to learn the easiest position in football.With that said, as long as Faulk is in St. Louis and healthy Jackson won't make too big of an impact.
 
Oh yeah - and I had him in my top-5 the last two years.  I saw 1600 yards and 4 TDs as an aberration that could only mean more TDs. I see 1600 yards producing 12 TDs much more likely than only 4.
Exactly. packersfan mentioned above that Holt's high TD output last year could be a trend or just a one-year phenomenon. I think it's neither. It's just a normal TD output for a 1300+ yard receiver. It's the low TD totals in previous years that were somewhat flukey.
Possibly. My concern there would be what you believe to be flukey has happened far more frequently in Holt's career than what he did last season. To this point in his career, a typical Holt season does not include many TDs. Until he can consistently prove otherwise, the conservative approach is to proceed as if he won't duplicate or exceed his TD output from last season and to expect a decline - even if it's relatively minor.
"Far more frequently" - ummm, what?
I'm not sure where the confusions resides? Holt has played five seasons in the NFL. In those five seasons, he has scored 6, 6, 7, 4 and 12 TDs. I said the 12 TDs could be viewed as either a trend or a one-year fluke since it so greatly exceeded his typical output. That point was countered by saying his TD output in those earlier seasons was likely the fluke due to the amount of yardage. I said based on his career production, what he did last season was more probably the fluke since it was such a significant aberration. Seems pretty obvious actually, it's just a question of whether you want to believe it was an aberration or the start of a trend.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh yeah - and I had him in my top-5 the last two years.  I saw 1600 yards and 4 TDs as an aberration that could only mean more TDs. I see 1600 yards producing 12 TDs much more likely than only 4.
Exactly. packersfan mentioned above that Holt's high TD output last year could be a trend or just a one-year phenomenon. I think it's neither. It's just a normal TD output for a 1300+ yard receiver. It's the low TD totals in previous years that were somewhat flukey.
Possibly. My concern there would be what you believe to be flukey has happened far more frequently in Holt's career than what he did last season. To this point in his career, a typical Holt season does not include many TDs. Until he can consistently prove otherwise, the conservative approach is to proceed as if he won't duplicate or exceed his TD output from last season and to expect a decline - even if it's relatively minor.
"Far more frequently" - ummm, what?
I'm not sure where the confusions resides? Holt has played five seasons in the NFL. In those five seasons, he has scored 6, 6, 7, 4 and 12 TDs. I said the 12 TDs could be viewed as either a trend or a one-year fluke since it so greatly exceeded his typical output. That point was countered by saying his TD output in those earlier seasons was likely the fluke due to the amount of yardage. I said based on his career production, what he did last season was more probably the fluke since it was such a significant aberration. Seems pretty obvious actually, it's just a question of whether you want to believe it was an aberration or the start of a trend.
I guess I misread your post? I htought you implied the lack of TD production on 1600+ yards was a "far" more frequent occurrence.When Holt has had more than 1600 yards, his TDs are 6 and 12.When Holt has betwen 1300 and 1600 yards, his TDs are 7 and 4.The idea Maurile and I discussed was to correlate the yardage to TD frequency. Based on just four years of being the "primary" receving threat where he has had (in order) years of 6, 7, 4, 12, it seems strange to say "far more" frequent to anything Holt does.
 
Oh yeah - and I had him in my top-5 the last two years.  I saw 1600 yards and 4 TDs as an aberration that could only mean more TDs. I see 1600 yards producing 12 TDs much more likely than only 4.
Exactly. packersfan mentioned above that Holt's high TD output last year could be a trend or just a one-year phenomenon. I think it's neither. It's just a normal TD output for a 1300+ yard receiver. It's the low TD totals in previous years that were somewhat flukey.
Possibly. My concern there would be what you believe to be flukey has happened far more frequently in Holt's career than what he did last season. To this point in his career, a typical Holt season does not include many TDs. Until he can consistently prove otherwise, the conservative approach is to proceed as if he won't duplicate or exceed his TD output from last season and to expect a decline - even if it's relatively minor.
"Far more frequently" - ummm, what?
I'm not sure where the confusions resides? Holt has played five seasons in the NFL. In those five seasons, he has scored 6, 6, 7, 4 and 12 TDs. I said the 12 TDs could be viewed as either a trend or a one-year fluke since it so greatly exceeded his typical output. That point was countered by saying his TD output in those earlier seasons was likely the fluke due to the amount of yardage. I said based on his career production, what he did last season was more probably the fluke since it was such a significant aberration. Seems pretty obvious actually, it's just a question of whether you want to believe it was an aberration or the start of a trend.
I guess I misread your post? I htought you implied the lack of TD production on 1600+ yards was a "far" more frequent occurrence.When Holt has had more than 1600 yards, his TDs are 6 and 12.When Holt has betwen 1300 and 1600 yards, his TDs are 7 and 4.The idea Maurile and I discussed was to correlate the yardage to TD frequency. Based on just four years of being the "primary" receving threat where he has had (in order) years of 6, 7, 4, 12, it seems strange to say "far more" frequent to anything Holt does.
The way I see it, the bottom line for Holt is that in his first four seasons he averaged about 6 TDs a game. Last year, he doubled that output. To me, that has all the potential to be a one-year aberration, no matter how many yards he compiles. That's why I don't put him on the same level as Moss and Harrison. I'm not as confident in his ability to get TDs as I am with the two of them. They have more proven history on their side.
 
The way I see it, the bottom line for Holt is that in his first four seasons he averaged about 6 TDs a game. Last year, he doubled that output. To me, that has all the potential to be a one-year aberration, no matter how many yards he compiles. That's why I don't put him on the same level as Moss and Harrison. I'm not as confident in his ability to get TDs as I am with the two of them. They have more proven history on their side.
FULLY agree he is no Moss/Harrison.I said that once those two are gone, you can gimmee Holt as an 85-100 reception, 14-1600 yard, 6-8 TD receiver, with upside, and I'll be happy. Same argument, with more questions on the output, regarding Chad Johnson. I have Holt and CJohn rated about equally, CJohn behind Holt in yardage, but both far behind Moss/Harrison.There are 15-17 RBS I would take before considering Holt. There are 9 or 10 RBs before I start to consider Moss/Harrison.After those four, I see a significant drop in reliability, though a lot of those receiversin the next batch have both tremendous upside and some have a lot of proven history (TO, Ward, and Horn, for example), they all have a lot more quesitonmarks (for me) than Holt. Yes, Holt aint making it a "big-three," but I, personally, have Holt head and shoulders above every other receiver outside of those two.
 
Holt has played five seasons in the NFL. In those five seasons, he has scored 6, 6, 7, 4 and 12 TDs. I said the 12 TDs could be viewed as either a trend or a one-year fluke since it so greatly exceeded his typical output. That point was countered by saying his TD output in those earlier seasons was likely the fluke due to the amount of yardage. I said based on his career production, what he did last season was more probably the fluke since it was such a significant aberration.
Here's my take.Holt's last four seasons were the output of a Robo-Holt program whose code we are not privy to. (See Robo-Edge.)IMO, when the full 200 seasons' worth of output become available, Holt's yardage will range from about 900 to 1800 yards, with a mean of about 1340. His TDs will range from 0 to 21, with a mean of about 8.5.His TDs of 6, 7, and 4 in 2000-2002 will appear a bit on the low side, while his 12 TDs last year will appear a bit on the high side. (I am projecting 9 TDs for Holt in 2004, along with 1350 yards.)
 
The BIG difference between Holt in years past and Holt last year and from here on out is this. Before, Holt was the 3rd option in the O (Faulk, Bruce, Holt). Now with Bruce on his last legs and Faulk's time and role becoming diminshed the order goes like this: Faulk (when healthy), Holt, Bruce. When Faulk is out (which is all but certain anymore) Holt is option #1. Add the fact that he is now #1, not 2 behind Bruce anymore, and this is why his TDs are up and IMO will stay up above the 7 range (given healthy). Classic example of how opportunity has created a much more valuable fantasy player.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
13 User(s) are reading this topic (5 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)8 Members: Sir Psycho, beto, Footballhead, Holy Schneikes, DonnyT33, Squirrels, Otis, Zaphod
PS I give up and am bored enough to bother asking: is there some cutesy fbg insider joke I missed somewhere that would make these kind of posts at least remotely meaningful in some way? maybe it's a way of saying "I have nothing whatsoever to add" or something similarly clever?
When jwvdcw does it in someone else's thread, it's not cutesy or meaningful in any way I'm aware of. Just random.But when someone else does it in one of jwvdcw's threads, it is a cutesy fbg insider joke.
:thumbup: Exactly.I also think we should start a poll on this topic.
I'll ask jwvcbkduelwekcsdcw to start one :lol:
 
I'm not going to try and predict Holt's stats for next year because there's been enough of that already. That fact is, if you take Holt as a top 3 WR you'll have to get him with one of the top 20 picks and to me that represents no value at all. If you take Holt in the late first round or early second where Moss and Harrison usually go, your missing a chance at taking a Stud/semi-stud RB who should easily get 1500 total yards and 8-10 TDs (Stat's typical of a borderline RB1/RB2.) Remember, this is where Lewis and Green went last year who were both top 5s. If holt gets 1600 yards and 12 TDs again, you'll be getting just what you paid for. If Holt get's anything less it's a blown pick. If you are able to get Holt closer to the end of the 2nd Round (around pick # 20), you have a slight chance of getting value if Holt repeats is '03 #'s, but anything less and he'll be right in the mix of the top 15 Wrs who were taken in round 3, 4 and later. You also miss out on guys like D. Davis and Kevin Barlow who just might be in the top 5 next year for RBS. You could get Tomlinson and Deuce here two years ago...Very few WRs have ever topped the numbers Holt put up last year so it unrealistic to believe Holts numbers will improve much. Those who believe Holt can continue putting up top 3 #'s don't have the consistency of other top3 Wrs to back it up. I'd much rather take a shot at a RB who's on average can get 1500 yds and 8-10 TDs with an upside of 2000 yds and 15+ tds and then take a top 10 wr in round 3 who I know is good for at least 1200 and 8 TDs (Holt, Ward, Chad, Coles.)

 
I'm not going to try and predict Holt's stats for next year because there's been enough of that already. That fact is, if you take Holt as a top 3 WR you'll have to get him with one of the top 20 picks and to me that represents no value at all. If you take Holt in the late first round or early second where Moss and Harrison usually go, your missing a chance at taking a Stud/semi-stud RB who should easily get 1500 total yards and 8-10 TDs (Stat's typical of a borderline RB1/RB2.) Remember, this is where Lewis and Green went last year who were both top 5s. If holt gets 1600 yards and 12 TDs again, you'll be getting just what you paid for. If Holt get's anything less it's a blown pick. If you are able to get Holt closer to the end of the 2nd Round (around pick # 20), you have a slight chance of getting value if Holt repeats is '03 #'s, but anything less and he'll be right in the mix of the top 15 Wrs who were taken in round 3, 4 and later. You also miss out on guys like D. Davis and Kevin Barlow who just might be in the top 5 next year for RBS. You could get Tomlinson and Deuce here two years ago...Very few WRs have ever topped the numbers Holt put up last year so it unrealistic to believe Holts numbers will improve much. Those who believe Holt can continue putting up top 3 #'s don't have the consistency of other top3 Wrs to back it up. I'd much rather take a shot at a RB who's on average can get 1500 yds and 8-10 TDs with an upside of 2000 yds and 15+ tds and then take a top 10 wr in round 3 who I know is good for at least 1200 and 8 TDs (Holt, Ward, Chad, Coles.)
I believe Holt will be going at right around #20 in most drafts once the season draws closer. I htink by then most folks will see 15+ RBs and 2 WRs who are better to add than Holt.I think there is a darned good chance C-Pepp will leave the board before Holt as well (though I personally wouldn't take ANY QB before the top-20 RBs and top-4 WRs were gone). Holt starts acquiring value, IMO, after the #19 pick - or at #20, as you contend.Given his current ADP at antsports of #17 and 2.05 in 12-team performance leagues, I'd say he is currently going slightly too high for my liking.
 
To answer the original question, yes TH is OVERvalued. Unless you are projecting him to have 1600/12, he is overvalued. Based on the hype machine, there is no chance one can get TH for any kind of value this year, unless of course he throws up 1800/18.

 
To answer the original question, yes TH is OVERvalued. Unless you are projecting him to have 1600/12, he is overvalued. Based on the hype machine, there is no chance one can get TH for any kind of value this year, unless of course he throws up 1800/18.
Huh? I'm not understanding this. All Holt has to do to live up to his value is finish in the top 3 or 5 in WR. 1800/18 would with out a doubt place him at top 5 over all. His stats need to be reflected against his peers to gather a real value. At 1400/10, I would have to bet that Holt finishes in the top 5 of all WR. That then would not be reaching for him.
 
To answer the original question, yes TH is OVERvalued. Unless you are projecting him to have 1600/12, he is overvalued. Based on the hype machine, there is no chance one can get TH for any kind of value this year, unless of course he throws up 1800/18.
Huh? I'm not understanding this. All Holt has to do to live up to his value is finish in the top 3 or 5 in WR. 1800/18 would with out a doubt place him at top 5 over all. His stats need to be reflected against his peers to gather a real value. At 1400/10, I would have to bet that Holt finishes in the top 5 of all WR. That then would not be reaching for him.
I agree with jurb - the question isn't absolute numbers, it is numbers versus other potential WR1.If Holt goes 1400/10, he will have justified an early second round pick.
 
13 User(s) are reading this topic (5 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)8 Members: Sir Psycho, beto, Footballhead, Holy Schneikes, DonnyT33, Squirrels, Otis, Zaphod
PS I give up and am bored enough to bother asking: is there some cutesy fbg insider joke I missed somewhere that would make these kind of posts at least remotely meaningful in some way? maybe it's a way of saying "I have nothing whatsoever to add" or something similarly clever?
When jwvdcw does it in someone else's thread, it's not cutesy or meaningful in any way I'm aware of. Just random.But when someone else does it in one of jwvdcw's threads, it is a cutesy fbg insider joke.
Thx for the translation MT, and :thumbup: on correctly pegging Holt last August. I guess even a blind squirrel blah blah blah ;)
 
To answer the original question, yes TH is OVERvalued. Unless you are projecting him to have 1600/12, he is overvalued. Based on the hype machine, there is no chance one can get TH for any kind of value this year, unless of course he throws up 1800/18.
Huh? I'm not understanding this. All Holt has to do to live up to his value is finish in the top 3 or 5 in WR. 1800/18 would with out a doubt place him at top 5 over all. His stats need to be reflected against his peers to gather a real value. At 1400/10, I would have to bet that Holt finishes in the top 5 of all WR. That then would not be reaching for him.
Holt is currently in the "Big 3" tier, and to stay in the big three he will need to put up 200+ FP. You are correct if he lives up to last years stats or something similar, then he is living up to his value, as in ranking. That does not = value in terms of drafting. If you draft him as the #2 WR and he puts up stats as the #2 WR, then great, you got what you paid for. Or so it seems. Even then that is not actually getting value. I think most Superbowl winners will agree they had the best team by getting players who were UNDERvalued, i.e drafting a WR as the #15 guy, but he actually puts up #5 WR stats.
 
If Holt goes 1400/10, he will have justified an early second round pick.
Hard to say that blindly w/o knowing league paramenters of course, but in general, that is where he will most likely be drafted.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top