Torry Holt is overvalued (1 Viewer)

[Marc Levin]

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.

I haven't seen anyone projecting him to be drafted above either Moss or Harrison, though your results may vary.I personally believe the 2.05 spot in a 12-team draft is a tiny bit too high for him, but is not tremendously overvalued for the #3 WR.IMO, he is NOT part of any big-three. There is a big-two, then Holt, then a tier of WRs who could be your number one if you don't get one of those three.If he WERE being valued as a big-three, you would hear people talking about him at the #10/#11 overal spot like they talk about Moss and Harrison.This is not like last year when folks had the Big Three projected as interchangeable with Harrison generally on top. Now, that said, I agree that Holt is slightly overvalued right now - but I think he will start to accumulate value from the #20 overall spot rather than his current #17 overall spot.

 

[jurb26]

I personally believe the 2.05 spot in a 12-team draft is a tiny bit too high for him, but is not tremendously overvalued for the #3 WR.IMO, he is NOT part of any big-three. There is a big-two, then Holt, then a tier of WRs who could be your number one if you don't get one of those three.If he WERE being valued as a big-three, you would hear people talking about him at the #10/#11 overal spot like they talk about Moss and Harrison.This is not like last year when folks had the Big Three projected as interchangeable with Harrison generally on top. Now, that said, I agree that Holt is slightly overvalued right now - but I think he will start to accumulate value from the #20 overall spot rather than his current #17 overall spot.

I agree with Marc. He may very well be the 3rd WR on most lists in the country, but that doesn't make him "big 3." He is a level ahead of the guys after him IMO but a level below Moss and Marvin. So its kinda a wish-wash "big 3." Not only that, but value is always hardest to find at the top of the draft, as in reality, most times these guys really have no real way to provide it. For example, the #1 player over all has the smallest chance of all to provide "value." That does not mean that he is a foolish pick though. The way I see it, if I take Holt as the 3td WR and he performs any where between 1-6, I did OK. The jump up to 1 still does not in the true sence of the word create great value to me. He only out performed by 2 spots. However, a guy I take at 50 overall has a ton of room to improve and can create outstanding value.

 

[Biabreakable]

Well said jurb26With your early picks you are taking the players who you feel are most likely to live up to thier draft position. Holt has been very consistent. If you project him with his average yards over the past 5 seasons and average TDs than draft him accordingly in relation to the other players being taken in the 1st 2 round then you are making a safe bet imo not passing up value to be drafted latter.If you like another player like a RB over Holt in your draft position then fine pass on Holt and look for WRs latter and hope that they will finish close enough to Holt to thus provide you with value.I would agrue that there are few players in the early rounds that really offer you the reliable consistency that Holt does though as they have much wider swings in variation from year to year than Holt has by scoring 6 TDs over his average. In most systems that is = to 36 points or 360 yards.Wherever Holt fits in to your projected rankings seems like a very safe pick to make to me.

 

[Marc Levin]

My god - jurb and I agree three times in one thread??Well, now I have to go ahead and disagree, but only on a very narrow [art of your post:

The way I see it, if I take Holt as the 3td WR and he performs any where between 1-6, I did OK.

While I agree that you probably did "OK," where I disagree is that if you take that #3 WR with a mid-2nd round pick, and he performs as the 5th or 6th best WR, you probably would have been better served going a different route with that pick (C-Pepp or your RB2) than a WR whose production you could replace with 3 or 4 other WRs a round later.If you take the #3 WR in the second round, he better perform like a top-3 WR, or else you could have waited until the 3rd or 4th and taken the 5th or 6th WR and had him perform at or above his expectations and been able to add another piece in the mid-second.

 

[hxperson]

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.

Then, according to your argument, Moss and Harrison also don't make good values either, because if they are drafted as the #1 and #2 WR's respectively, the most value they can give you is the production of the #1 and #2 WR. Why even bother ranking wide receivers if you think this way?

 

[Marc Levin]

BTW - would like to add - jurb is RIGHT ON when he says that very few of the players you will be getting in the first two rounds have "value" For every single one, pretty much the best they can do is live up to their value, and only exceptional cases (AGreen, JLew for example) will drastically exceed their value as picks in the first two rounds.The analogy of the #1 pick having the lowest chance to give you value is an excellent one.

 

[jwvdcw]

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 posted a poll about a year ago asking if you think a stud WR puts up better numbers with an average #2 WR or another stud making him #1A and #1B. The results were insanely close. Therefore, I don't think that your logic really is valid.Take Peerless Price and Eric Moulds as an example. Great together; lousy apart. So I don't think being the only great WR necessarily helps your numbers. I think his TDs were a fluke. I'll repeat: HE HAD ONE GOOD YEAR with the touchdowns. To put him over Harrison who has 5 years in a row in the top 3 WRs is insane. At worst, Harrison has shown that he'll be the #3 WR overall...thats at his worst! At worst, Holt could be #10 like he has been near many years before this.

 

[jwvdcw]

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.

So every single one of his previous years was a fluke but the one year last year was the norm??? When something happens 3-5 years(I forget which year he came in the league) in a row, and then changes for ONE year, I find it hard to agree with what you're saying.

 

[Da Flyin Lion]

Not only that, but value is always hardest to find at the top of the draft, as in reality, most times these guys really have no real way to provide it. For example, the #1 player over all has the smallest chance of all to provide "value." That does not mean that he is a foolish pick though. The way I see it, if I take Holt as the 3td WR and he performs any where between 1-6, I did OK. The jump up to 1 still does not in the true sence of the word create great value to me. He only out performed by 2 spots. However, a guy I take at 50 overall has a ton of room to improve and can create outstanding value.

That's a good point about value in the first two rounds. It's hard to find value at the first two rounds because guys just can't get much better. But for the first two rounds you have to look at risk vs. reward...The reward of using a high pick on Holt is the he will put up the same #s as last year and you'll get what you pay for. That's why the old big 3 of Moss, Harrison, and Owens were consistently taken in the past because you knew what you'd get out of them every year. I don't think one top 2 season out of Holt is enough to put him there yet. The risk is that he'll regress to something close to the his career average and you'll have a WR with stats similar to any # of WRs available in the 3rd or 4th round. Now look at the other players available where Holt is being picked (let's assume the mid second round.) Assuming Moss and Harrison are off the board which seems to be the general consesus here, You've got the 14th -18th ranked RBs, and the top 3 QBs. Most of the Teir 3 and 4 Rbs available in the 2nd round all have the potential to move into the top10 or even the top 5 amoung Rbs. I won't go into each one of them in detail but the case can be made for guys like Travis Henry, Corey Dillon, and Rudi Johnson to move up this year. Should one of these guys move into the top 10, that paired with a good first round pick could lead to a pretty good season. But even if these guys stay at the RB2 range, you're still getting what you paid for, with something around 1500 total yards and 8-10 TDs. The risk of course is that the RBs production could drop off drastically but a big drop for a NFL teams starting Rb is pretty rare unless there's an injury. The other option with your second round pick is taking a top QB. Over the last few years we've seen top Qbs drop off like Warner, Garcia, and Gannon. But Manning or Culpepper wouldn't be a bad pick for this spot. Personnally, I'm up for taking a QB later though so I'd wait. What I'm trying to say with all of this is not only does Holt represent little value, he represents quite a big risk for a second round pick, with little reward. I think a going after a solid RB2 is a much better gamble.

 

[jwvdcw]

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.)

well said.

 

[Marc Levin]

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.

So every single one of his previous years was a fluke but the one year last year was the norm??? When something happens 3-5 years(I forget which year he came in the league) in a row, and then changes for ONE year, I find it hard to agree with what you're saying.

I THINK he was saying that the 4 TDs on 1300+ yards is generally more of a fluke than 12 TDs on 1600 yards would be (not just for Holt specifically). 1300 yards and only 4 TDs is a very unusual grouping - normally, a receiver who is used to a degree that he gets 85+ receptions and 1300+ yards gets significantly more than 4 TDs.As for Holt specifically, he went 7 TDs on 1300 yards and 6 TDs on 1600 yards prior to the 1300/4 year. The 12 TDs and 4 TDs are actually both anomolies. (edit to add) But, 12 TDs on 1600 yards is not as UNUSUAL as 4 TDs on 1300 yards is. I think Maurile was aying (and I was definitely saying) that the second is MORE UNUSUAL for receivers in general and should be considered the anomoly, even for Torry "lack of TDs" Holt.

 

[Marc Levin]

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.

Then, according to your argument, Moss and Harrison also don't make good values either, because if they are drafted as the #1 and #2 WR's respectively, the most value they can give you is the production of the #1 and #2 WR. Why even bother ranking wide receivers if you think this way?

Ok...heres the thing. When you draft a guy like Harrison, you get two things: 1.You get a guaranteed top 3 WR season. and 2.You get the possiblity that he'll absolutely explode for one of the greatest WR seasons ever like he did 2 years ago...Same deal with Moss.When you draft Holt, you get 1.a guaranteed top 10 season and a guy who has once finished in the top 3 and 2.Not much more upside than last year.I'd compare Holt to a guy like Rick Williams going into last year...always very good, but had a career year and was way overvalued.

So, where is Deuce"8 rushing TDs" McCallister on your RB charts? If he is top-6/7, don't you think you have him a little bit overvalued with a per year average of only 12 total TDs as a starter?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I THINK he was saying that the 4 TDs on 1300+ yards is generally more of a fluke than 12 TDs on 1600 yards would be (not just for Holt specifically). 1300 yards and only 4 TDs is a very unusual grouping - normally, a receiver who is used to a degree that he gets 85+ receptions and 1300+ yards gets significantly more than 4 TDs.As for Holt specifically, he went 7 TDs on 1300 yards and 6 TDs on 1600 yards prior to the 1300/4 year. The 12 TDs and 4 TDs are actually both anomolies. (edit to add) But, 12 TDs on 1600 yards is not as UNUSUAL as 4 TDs on 1300 yards is. I think Maurile was aying (and I was definitely saying) that the second is MORE UNUSUAL for receivers in general and should be considered the anomoly, even for Torry "lack of TDs" Holt.

That's what I was trying to say; I just wasn't very clear.

 

[hxperson]

Ok...heres the thing. When you draft a guy like Harrison, you get two things: 1.You get a guaranteed top 3 WR season. and 2.You get the possiblity that he'll absolutely explode for one of the greatest WR seasons ever like he did 2 years ago...Same deal with Moss.When you draft Holt, you get 1.a guaranteed top 10 season and a guy who has once finished in the top 3 and 2.Not much more upside than last year.I'd compare Holt to a guy like Rick Williams going into last year...always very good, but had a career year and was way overvalued.

I completely agree with you, jwvcdw. But what does that have to do with Holt being ranked as the #3 wide receiver? No one is saying Moss shouldn't be the #1 WR or Harrison shouldn't be the #2 WR. Your original question is: "Is Holt overrated, because he's being considered a top 3 WR?". Who, then, assuming Moss and Harrison are 1 and 2, represents a better choice then Holt as the #3 ranked WR? I think he deserves to be taken ahead of CJ, Owens. or Ward for the following reasons:1. CJ has a shorter track record, weaker offense, and a rookie QB.2. Owens is on a new team, had a bad year last year.3. Ward is not as talented, has greater QB concerns, and has a better WR opposite him (I know most people believe that it is favourable to have a more talented #2 WR. I do too, but I see it more like a zero-cost collar, where you reduce your downside but also limit the upside).

 

[joffer]

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.

Then, according to your argument, Moss and Harrison also don't make good values either, because if they are drafted as the #1 and #2 WR's respectively, the most value they can give you is the production of the #1 and #2 WR. Why even bother ranking wide receivers if you think this way?

Ok...heres the thing. When you draft a guy like Harrison, you get two things: 1.You get a guaranteed top 3 WR season.

Like last year when he was 5th?

 

[Marc Levin]

Ok...heres the thing. When you draft a guy like Harrison, you get two things: 1.You get a guaranteed top 3 WR season. and 2.You get the possiblity that he'll absolutely explode for one of the greatest WR seasons ever like he did 2 years ago...Same deal with Moss.When you draft Holt, you get 1.a guaranteed top 10 season and a guy who has once finished in the top 3 and 2.Not much more upside than last year.I'd compare Holt to a guy like Rick Williams going into last year...always very good, but had a career year and was way overvalued.

I completely agree with you, jwvcdw. But what does that have to do with Holt being ranked as the #3 wide receiver? No one is saying Moss shouldn't be the #1 WR or Harrison shouldn't be the #2 WR. Your original question is: "Is Holt overrated, because he's being considered a top 3 WR?". Who, then, assuming Moss and Harrison are 1 and 2, represents a better choice then Holt as the #3 ranked WR? I think he deserves to be taken ahead of CJ, Owens. or Ward for the following reasons:1. CJ has a shorter track record, weaker offense, and a rookie QB.2. Owens is on a new team, had a bad year last year.3. Ward is not as talented, has greater QB concerns, and has a better WR opposite him (I know most people believe that it is favourable to have a more talented #2 WR. I do too, but I see it more like a zero-cost collar, where you reduce your downside but also limit the upside).

I think "no vowels' in his name"'s argument is that the price you will have to pay to get Holt is overvalued for what you get back for an early second roundpick.I agree with that.However, IF you end up with Holt for what I would consider zero-value (which would be the #19 or #20 player off the board - after 16/17 RBs, 2 WRs, and MAYBE 1 QB), he is not "overvalued." In short, I agree that if you take Holt while several RBs from the 11-17 range are around, you've probably overpaid - if you get him after those players are gone, you've gotten him at "appropriate" value.

 

[hxperson]

I think "no vowels' in his name"'s argument is that the price you will have to pay to get Holt is overvalued for what you get back for an early second roundpick.I agree with that.However, IF you end up with Holt for what I would consider zero-value (which would be the #19 or #20 player off the board - after 16/17 RBs, 2 WRs, and MAYBE 1 QB), he is not "overvalued." In short, I agree that if you take Holt while several RBs from the 11-17 range are around, you've probably overpaid - if you get him after those players are gone, you've gotten him at "appropriate" value.

Again, I agree. But, whether or not you take Holt after 10 RB's or 30 RB's, that is irrelevant to my point and the point I was arguing. GoRaiders said this: "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."My point is this: SOMEBODY has to be ranked, and drafted, as the #3 WR. Unless you believe that that somebody should not be Holt, why should drafting Holt as the third WR automatically represent poor value? I believe that Holt is being overvalued if he is ranked as a top 2 WR. I also believe that Holt is being overvalued if he is being drafted among the top 20 picks. But I do not believe that Holt is being overvalued if people are ranking him as a top 3 WR.

 

[beef]

this should be a poll

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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.

If you draft him #2 and he ends up being #2, you should be happy. That is good value. Most guys who are drafted #2 at their position end up being more like #5, on average. So if you get the #2 guy you're doing better than par.

 

[BigRed]

2. Owens is on a new team, had a bad year last year.

lol @ 1100/9 a "bad" year. Bad for him, maybe. New team? BFD. Yes he is a POS and total moron, but IMO no way does he do some Boston-type implosion. If not Top 3, he's very close.

 

[Master Shake]

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.

Does anybody have last years stats for Holt for games played with and without Faulk in the line up?

 

[GoRaiders]

If you draft him #2 and he ends up being #2, you should be happy. That is good value. Most guys who are drafted #2 at their position end up being more like #5, on average. So if you get the #2 guy you're doing better than par.

That all depends on where you drafted him. If I drafted him using the #5 pick in the draft as the #2 WR, is that value?The question posed was is Holt overvalued. I think most of us can agree he is, esp. in terms of where he will be drafted. It is an opinion that can easily be proven wrong by TH going out and putting up Moss like #'s.

 

[GoRaiders]

My point is this: SOMEBODY has to be ranked, and drafted, as the #3 WR. Unless you believe that that somebody should not be Holt, why should drafting Holt as the third WR automatically represent poor value?

I agree Holt may be ranked and drafted as the #3 WR. I also agree it is hard to get value out of your top picks, since there is not much upside (unless you draft Priesty of course). And it may not be a bad thing drafting Holt as the #3 WR, it all depends on where you draft him that will ultimately depend on if you got "value". If I draft the #12 RB in the 2nd round and he ends up being the #15 RB, I can still feel like I got some decent value. Since most likely the #15 RB was taken just a few picks later. If I draft TH as the #3 WR in the 2nd round, and he ends up being the #6 WR, I absolutely did not get value, since the #6 WR would have been drafted in a later round, and I would have lost my chance at getting that #12-#15 RB.

 

[Marc Levin]

My point is this:  SOMEBODY has to be ranked, and drafted, as the #3 WR.  Unless you believe that that somebody should not be Holt, why should drafting Holt as the third WR automatically represent poor value? 

I agree Holt may be ranked and drafted as the #3 WR. I also agree it is hard to get value out of your top picks, since there is not much upside (unless you draft Priesty of course). And it may not be a bad thing drafting Holt as the #3 WR, it all depends on where you draft him that will ultimately depend on if you got "value". If I draft the #12 RB in the 2nd round and he ends up being the #15 RB, I can still feel like I got some decent value. Since most likely the #15 RB was taken just a few picks later. If I draft TH as the #3 WR in the 2nd round, and he ends up being the #6 WR, I absolutely did not get value, since the #6 WR would have been drafted in a later round, and I would have lost my chance at getting that #12-#15 RB.

In support of this concept, I refer to a one year data set - last year. Statistically last year, the gradual decline in WRs occurred between WR3 and WR15 (between 2 and 3 points a game separated the WR3 from the WR15). A steep drop occurred between WR2 and WR3. If you assume that your rankings are perfect (even if your projections are not), you can probably see that taking an elite WR (which only Moss and Harrison are for this year) is warranted in the early second, but the value of taking the WR3 up there is not IF you assume that he hits WR3 status and that will not be close enough production-wise to the WR1 or 2 to justify a selection that far ahead of WR 4, 5, 6 who are selected a round later. Since Holt is going only a few slots after the WR2, he is overvalued there - but he has good value if he lasts into the later part of the second since the early to mid third round is where the WR 4-5-6 will go. Holt should be selected a few slots ahead of where the WR4-5-6 start coming off rather than a few slots behind the WR 1-2 is, I believe, GoRaiders' essential argument here.You can get an "almost as good" receiver with the WR 5, 6, or 7 as the WR3, if you take last year's data only. I have not projected this out for when TO made for an elite three, but in my mind it is analogous to why C-Pepp and Manning go so close together in the late second/early third and no other QB will then be selected for a littel while - about a round. That is, unless someone takes a chance on Vick. Holt = Vick. Both are overrated when selected near the top-2 at the position, even though both *could* top one of the guys ahead of them, and are maybe the most likely of the next group to do so - but are selected at much better value immediately ahead of the WR4, and QB4.

 

[Banger]

2. Owens is on a new team, had a bad year last year.

lol @ 1100/9 a "bad" year. Bad for him, maybe. New team? BFD. Yes he is a POS and total moron, but IMO no way does he do some Boston-type implosion. If not Top 3, he's very close.

Not to hijack the thread but I also find funny that people forget Owens got hurt early in the 1st qtr in game 15, so he essentially missed two games of the season. So extrapolating his down year #'s over 16 games he "would have had" 1250 yards and 10tds. I'll take that.

 

[hxperson]

In support of this concept, I refer to a one year data set - last year. Statistically last year, the gradual decline in WRs occurred between WR3 and WR15 (between 2 and 3 points a game separated the WR3 from the WR15). A steep drop occurred between WR2 and WR3. If you assume that your rankings are perfect (even if your projections are not), you can probably see that taking an elite WR (which only Moss and Harrison are for this year) is warranted in the early second, but the value of taking the WR3 up there is not IF you assume that he hits WR3 status and that will not be close enough production-wise to the WR1 or 2 to justify a selection that far ahead of WR 4, 5, 6 who are selected a round later. Since Holt is going only a few slots after the WR2, he is overvalued there - but he has good value if he lasts into the later part of the second since the early to mid third round is where the WR 4-5-6 will go. Holt should be selected a few slots ahead of where the WR4-5-6 start coming off rather than a few slots behind the WR 1-2 is, I believe, GoRaiders' essential argument here.You can get an "almost as good" receiver with the WR 5, 6, or 7 as the WR3, if you take last year's data only. I have not projected this out for when TO made for an elite three, but in my mind it is analogous to why C-Pepp and Manning go so close together in the late second/early third and no other QB will then be selected for a littel while - about a round. That is, unless someone takes a chance on Vick. Holt = Vick. Both are overrated when selected near the top-2 at the position, even though both *could* top one of the guys ahead of them, and are maybe the most likely of the next group to do so - but are selected at much better value immediately ahead of the WR4, and QB4.

That's all fine and dandy, but it wasn't the point I was arguing. What I said was that unless you believe one or more of the WR's ranked after him (Owens, Ward, Chad Johnson, etc.) are obviously better than him, just the fact that Holt is being ranked as the #3 wide receiver should not mean that he is overrated. This is what GoRaiders initially said. If he had said that Holt was overrated because he was being taken ahead of the top 20 RB's and/or ahead of Moss and Harrison, I would agree.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If he had said that Holt was overrated because he was being taken ahead of the top 20 RB's and/or ahead of Moss and Harrison, I would agree.

I'm an RB guy, but I can't name 20 RBs I'd rather have than Holt. Twenty RBs is getting into Marcel Shipp/Julius Jones territory; those guys are a lot less likely to be studs at their position than Holt is.

 

[hxperson]

2. Owens is on a new team, had a bad year last year.

lol @ 1100/9 a "bad" year. Bad for him, maybe. New team? BFD. Yes he is a POS and total moron, but IMO no way does he do some Boston-type implosion. If not Top 3, he's very close.

Fair enough, BR. I just feel that with his declining trends and change of teams, he has a slightly higher risk premium in my eyes. But I must admit that I would have a hard time actually going through with drafting Holt over Owens.

 

[Marc Levin]

That's all fine and dandy, but it wasn't the point I was arguing. What I said was that unless you believe one or more of the WR's ranked after him (Owens, Ward, Chad Johnson, etc.) are obviously better than him, just the fact that Holt is being ranked as the #3 wide receiver should not mean that he is overrated. This is what GoRaiders initially said. If he had said that Holt was overrated because he was being taken ahead of the top 20 RB's and/or ahead of Moss and Harrison, I would agree.

I will allow GoRaiders to disagree with you regarding what he initially said - I was lending credence to his last argument (I disagree with most of what he's said actually). While "overrated" may be what he initially "said," the discussion evolved into whether he was "overvalued."In support of that, I would (but I don't) argue that Holt's numbers will end up much closer to the WR 4-5-6 guys than the WR 1-2 guys. Therefore, he should be drafted closer to the WR 4-5-6 guys than the WR 1-2 guys.

I think an ADP of 2.05 is too high, but when I took a look at antsports, I see a 2.07 ADP for TO, 2.11 for CJohn and 3.01 for Hines Ward, a 2.05 ADP for Holt sounds about right - and I do not believe he is "overvalued." I happen to think all four of those receivers have way too high an ADP - 5 WRs before the end of the second round seems like a really high number of WRs to me.

 

[Marc Levin]

If he had said that Holt was overrated because he was being taken ahead of the top 20 RB's and/or ahead of Moss and Harrison, I would agree.

I'm an RB guy, but I can't name 20 RBs I'd rather have than Holt. Twenty RBs is getting into Marcel Shipp/Julius Jones territory; those guys are a lot less likely to be studs at their position than Holt is.

Yeah, I get down to about RB 17 or so when I start to see Holt as more attractive. Add in those top-2 WRs and Holt shoud be selected around pick #19 or #20 overall (as I have said several times in this thread).

 

[Da Flyin Lion]

Top 24 RB projections per FBG:1. LT2. Priest3. Deuce4. Portis5. Alexander6. Williams7. Green8. James9. Barlow10. Lewis11. Taylor12. D. Davis 13. Faulk14. Barber15. Henry16. S. Davis17. Rudi18. C-Mart (I'd put Dillon over Cu-Mar)19. Dillon20. Bennett21. Westbrook22. Staley23. Julius Jones24. Marcel ShippLooking at this and assuming Manning, Culpepper, Moss and Harrison go in the first two rounds, I wouldn't think about taking Holt unless the top 18 Rbs were gone. I'd put Dillon over C-Mart on this list, so I'd say that I'd take Holt over Bennett or C-Mart. This would be right around the 23rd pick in the draft.With the 23rd pick, my team would start out looking like: Priest, Holt, and then another RB (let's assume Bennett.) I could live with that. But if people are saying to take Holt around the # 20 Pick. I'd much rather go James,Henry, and a 3rd Rnd WR (let's say Joe Horn). Then James, Holt, and a 3rd rd Rb like Shipp or Thomas Jones. If I had to take Ship or Jones in the 3rd, I'd probably go WR again and wait on my RB2 (which really would lower my chances of getting a good one.)

 

[jurb26]

My point is this:  SOMEBODY has to be ranked, and drafted, as the #3 WR.  Unless you believe that that somebody should not be Holt, why should drafting Holt as the third WR automatically represent poor value? 

I agree Holt may be ranked and drafted as the #3 WR. I also agree it is hard to get value out of your top picks, since there is not much upside (unless you draft Priesty of course). And it may not be a bad thing drafting Holt as the #3 WR, it all depends on where you draft him that will ultimately depend on if you got "value". If I draft the #12 RB in the 2nd round and he ends up being the #15 RB, I can still feel like I got some decent value. Since most likely the #15 RB was taken just a few picks later. If I draft TH as the #3 WR in the 2nd round, and he ends up being the #6 WR, I absolutely did not get value, since the #6 WR would have been drafted in a later round, and I would have lost my chance at getting that #12-#15 RB.

I still don't understand this GoRaiders. In your model, you are assuming that Holt underperforms by a large margin and the RBs at worst perform up to their draft possition. How is that a fair comparision? Plus if you can get other Rbs that are very close to that of the one you take, how is there an increased value there? Holt seems to seperate himself where as the RBs don't. I would have to argue that Holt is a much safer bet to remain top 5 of WRs than any of the RBs you can get there are to make the jump up. Holt has been consistant as a player who WILL get you points, as inconsistant as his TD numbers have been. His situation is different now than it was before though, so I would expect to see more consistantsy from him in that department now. When you examine RBs 13 and lower on that list, you run into all of them having serious ? marks. Holt has got none. Yeah you can be skeptical about tds, but his yds are about as sure as they get in Fatasy football. IMO Holt offers better value than any of those guys. He is a slight step bellow Moss and Harrison, but at the same time a full step above the other WRs below him. Where as when you look at the RBs from 13 and down, they can be much more easily grouped in the same tier. Holt may not be a big 3rd, but he is #3 and it is by a nice margin IMO. Now maybe you have a different view on TH. However, your situation of worst case senerio for Holt and best case senerio for the RB is not a fair translation if you ask me.

 

[Marc Levin]

jurb and me agree AGAIN. Holt is the surest bet in the entire league after Moss and Hasrrison to get you 80-100 receptions and 13-1600 yards - TDs are a whole other matter.

 

[Marc Levin]

jurb and me agree AGAIN. Holt is the surest bet in the entire league after Moss and Hasrrison to get you 80-100 receptions and 13-1600 yards - TDs are a whole other matter.

(meant to add - pencil him in for 130-160 FF points - more if you give pts/rec. - and throw in 36 points for 6 TDs and you can see why he shoudl be going in the mid-2nd of any draft).

 

[jurb26]

jurb and me agree AGAIN. Holt is the surest bet in the entire league after Moss and Hasrrison to get you 80-100 receptions and 13-1600 yards - TDs are a whole other matter.

Maybe I should get myself checked at the Docs office, this is getting to wierd.

 

[Marc Levin]

jurb and me agree AGAIN. Holt is the surest bet in the entire league after Moss and Hasrrison to get you 80-100 receptions and 13-1600 yards - TDs are a whole other matter.

Maybe I should get myself checked at the Docs office, this is getting to wierd.

LOL.

 

[jurb26]

However, your situation of worst case senerio for Holt and best case senerio for the RB is not a fair translation if you ask me.

I suppose I should further explain this as it looks unclear to even myself now that I've read it again.It seems to me that for Holt you are looking at a realistic Bell Curve of him finishing anywhere from WR1-WR6 at years end. Yes there is a chance he falls bellow that, but it is VERY small IMO and really only injury will acount for it as far as I see. However, when you look at RBs 13-20ish, their Bell Curve would range from a finish of anywhere of RB10-RB30 at years end. Now I have no math formulas to prove any of this, so don't ask. Pretty much just how I percieve the situations. At any rate though, it is rather obvious that the RBs have got a much greater risk and reward to offer as compared to Holt. Plus seeing that many of these RBs are grouped together and Holt is alone at his "tier" it seems that Holt is the greater value at this point (opinion of course). Holt is a different WR than most as Marc said, he is as sure a bet as you get in FF next to the studs of Moss and Harrison. This does not mean that I am certain to take him at that spot, as my needs and value for other guys will still determine that. Just that anyone who did take him there would not be reaching IMO. So to answer the question of which this thread orig asked, no I don't think Holt is over rated. He is rated as the 3rd best WR by most of the counrty and that is exactly where I would expect him to finish. Or at least very near it.

 

[ko-jack]

of course he is. he spiked his tds and now has no where to go but down. this is why last year doesnt = this year. in the past he has finished in 10-12 range. thats where i expect him to finish this year

 

[Marc Levin]

of course he is. he spiked his tds and now has no where to go but down. this is why last year doesnt = this year. in the past he has finished in 10-12 range. thats where i expect him to finish this year

Why do his TD numbers alone cause him to be overvalued? He will not be the first WR to see his TDs go down, but still maintain his EOY "rank."

 

[Da Flyin Lion]

It seems to me that for Holt you are looking at a realistic Bell Curve of him finishing anywhere from WR1-WR6 at years end. Yes there is a chance he falls bellow that, but it is VERY small IMO and really only injury will acount for it as far as I see. However, when you look at RBs 13-20ish, their Bell Curve would range from a finish of anywhere of RB10-RB30 at years end.

I'd have to disagree with your bell curve ratings for Torry Holt and the 13-20 RBs. I see Holt finishing anywhere from WR2 to WR15 with an average being around WR 6. That just about defines his career to date. 2003 he was 2nd but in '02 I think he was 15. While I have Holt rated as the WR3 at this point, I really see him finishing around 5 or 6 at the end of the year. I just don't know who will knock him out of third and I figure Holt's chances of finishing in the top 6 are better then anyone I have rated below him. I'd rate the 13-20Rbs more on a curve of 5-30. Wasn't Jamal Lewis rated around 13 last year? How about Deuce and LT two years ago? Sure, having one finish 30 is much worse then what Holt would do, but getting one who could finish in the top 5 would be that much better. I think Faulk, D. Davis, Henry, and Corey Dillon all have a shot at that, yes some have a better shot then others. And that's the risk/reward I'm looking for with my second pick. Plus look at the bell curve of the 3rd and 4th round Wrs available. Ward, Coles, TO, C. Johnson, Horn etc all have a curve of WR4 to Wr15. Not much different then Holt. But the 3rd and 4th Rd RBs curve looks more like RB20-RB40. Not much you can do there.

 

[jurb26]

It seems to me that for Holt you are looking at a realistic Bell Curve of him finishing anywhere from WR1-WR6 at years end. Yes there is a chance he falls bellow that, but it is VERY small IMO and really only injury will acount for it as far as I see. However, when you look at RBs 13-20ish, their Bell Curve would range from a finish of anywhere of RB10-RB30 at years end.

I'd have to disagree with your bell curve ratings for Torry Holt and the 13-20 RBs. I see Holt finishing anywhere from WR2 to WR15 with an average being around WR 6. That just about defines his career to date. 2003 he was 2nd but in '02 I think he was 15. While I have Holt rated as the WR3 at this point, I really see him finishing around 5 or 6 at the end of the year. I just don't know who will knock him out of third and I figure Holt's chances of finishing in the top 6 are better then anyone I have rated below him. I'd rate the 13-20Rbs more on a curve of 5-30. Wasn't Jamal Lewis rated around 13 last year? How about Deuce and LT two years ago? Sure, having one finish 30 is much worse then what Holt would do, but getting one who could finish in the top 5 would be that much better. I think Faulk, D. Davis, Henry, and Corey Dillon all have a shot at that, yes some have a better shot then others. And that's the risk/reward I'm looking for with my second pick. Plus look at the bell curve of the 3rd and 4th round Wrs available. Ward, Coles, TO, C. Johnson, Horn etc all have a curve of WR4 to Wr15. Not much different then Holt. But the 3rd and 4th Rd RBs curve looks more like RB20-RB40. Not much you can do there.

Yeah I agree, the RBs very should go up to about 5 or so. However I think that Holt is now in a different and better situation than he was in years prior to 2003. I see it very unlikely that he falls that far backward. This is a guy that has had the tools the whole time, just needed a few years to get them all together and now is the main focus of the passing game. Before it was Bruce, Faulk, Holt. He is now higher up in the ladder. Just opinion though. I agree that the RBs have a likelyhood to approach RB5 numbers or so from that spot though. Now way do I see Holt falling out of the top 10 though.

 

[GoRaiders]

I will allow GoRaiders to disagree with you regarding what he initially said - I was lending credence to his last argument (I disagree with most of what he's said actually). While "overrated" may be what he initially "said," the discussion evolved into whether he was "overvalued."

You may want to check all my posts. I never once said over"rated". This whole time while many posts have spun away from the original topic of TH being over"valued", I stressed in almost every post OVERvalued. As for you disagreeing with me, you actually posted that you think TH is overvalued, which is what I have been saying all along. I guess we can agree to disagree that we actually agree.

 

[GoRaiders]

I still don't understand this GoRaiders. In your model, you are assuming that Holt underperforms by a large margin and the RBs at worst perform up to their draft possition. How is that a fair comparision? Plus if you can get other Rbs that are very close to that of the one you take, how is there an increased value there? Holt seems to seperate himself where as the RBs don't. I would have to argue that Holt is a much safer bet to remain top 5 of WRs than any of the RBs you can get there are to make the jump up. Holt has been consistant as a player who WILL get you points, as inconsistant as his TD numbers have been. His situation is different now than it was before though, so I would expect to see more consistantsy from him in that department now. When you examine RBs 13 and lower on that list, you run into all of them having serious ? marks. Holt has got none. Yeah you can be skeptical about tds, but his yds are about as sure as they get in Fatasy football. IMO Holt offers better value than any of those guys. He is a slight step bellow Moss and Harrison, but at the same time a full step above the other WRs below him. Where as when you look at the RBs from 13 and down, they can be much more easily grouped in the same tier. Holt may not be a big 3rd, but he is #3 and it is by a nice margin IMO. Now maybe you have a different view on TH. However, your situation of worst case senerio for Holt and best case senerio for the RB is not a fair translation if you ask me.

Where do I say TH underperforms by a large margin? I said TH underperforms from WR#3 to WR#6, and RB#12 to RB#15. Breaking out your slide rule you will see that both of these is a 3 position decrease. IS that fair enough?

 

[jurb26]

I will allow GoRaiders to disagree with you regarding what he initially said - I was lending credence to his last argument (I disagree with most of what he's said actually). While "overrated" may be what he initially "said," the discussion evolved into whether he was "overvalued."

You may want to check all my posts. I never once said over"rated". This whole time while many posts have spun away from the original topic of TH being over"valued", I stressed in almost every post OVERvalued. As for you disagreeing with me, you actually posted that you think TH is overvalued, which is what I have been saying all along. I guess we can agree to disagree that we actually agree.

That fact if Holt is overvalued or not can only be determined by seasons end vs. where he was taken in respective drafts. I think that is where the major confusion is coming from. For now we can debate if he is ranked too high and if we think he will be overvalued. But the true results will come later on.

 

[GoRaiders]

That fact if Holt is overvalued or not can only be determined by seasons end vs. where he was taken in respective drafts. I think that is where the major confusion is coming from. For now we can debate if he is ranked too high and if we think he will be overvalued. But the true results will come later on.

Exactly. (Something I did point out in an earlier posts.)

 

[jurb26]

Where do I say TH underperforms by a large margin? I said TH underperforms from WR#3 to WR#6, and RB#12 to RB#15. Breaking out your slide rule you will see that both of these is a 3 position decrease. IS that fair enough?

Yeah your right, you didn't "say" it, but implied it. You imply it by saying if he performs at that level you can get another WR an entire rd later to = that production. Where as for the RBs you have a much larger group of players in a tier, yet are saying that you are far less likely to land one. It seems to me (not sure if you see it this way or not) that Holt is in a tier by himslef at WR. Just below Moss and Harrison and above the rest. The RBs however have got about 5-7 players given your view that are in that tier. Your odds are greater of landing on of the 5 to 7 then they are to get Holt. But you are assuming that the WR you "could have gotten" a rd later will have produced up to Holts level. I could just rephrase this and say that I "could" land a RB from group 20-30 that would out produce the ones you are taking there. This really just comes down to how well you think Holt will play next season. I clearly think he will perform better than you, or I don't think we would be discussing this right now.

 

[jurb26]

That fact if Holt is overvalued or not can only be determined by seasons end vs. where he was taken in respective drafts. I think that is where the major confusion is coming from. For now we can debate if he is ranked too high and if we think he will be overvalued. But the true results will come later on.

Exactly. (Something I did point out in an earlier posts.)

Yeah I know just seemed to be the right time to restate it.

 

[GoRaiders]

I clearly think he will perform better than you, or I don't think we would be discussing this right now.

I agree.Projected 2004 statsT Holt - 1,400/rec 8 TD'sGoRaiders - 0/rec 0 TD'sIt is clear that T Holt will perfrom better than me! (Although I expect the Bolts to call me anyday now to help out their putrid WR core)I actually get what you meant. Even though it may seem I am down on T Holt, I am not. I do think he will have a good year, I just would not draft him early 2 round. To me that is overvalued, IMHO of course.

 

[jurb26]

IMHO of course.

Wouldn't expect anything less.

 

[Marc Levin]

I will allow GoRaiders to disagree with you regarding what he initially said - I was lending credence to his last argument (I disagree with most of what he's said actually). While "overrated" may be what he initially "said," the discussion evolved into whether he was "overvalued."

You may want to check all my posts. I never once said over"rated". This whole time while many posts have spun away from the original topic of TH being over"valued", I stressed in almost every post OVERvalued. As for you disagreeing with me, you actually posted that you think TH is overvalued, which is what I have been saying all along. I guess we can agree to disagree that we actually agree.

Thank you for jumping in - didn't want to put words in your mouth, even though I really didn't recall you ever using the word "overrated."I am in agreement with you that Holt, as WR#3, is overvalued at the 2.05 spot, but it appears from the antsports numbers I found, that all the WRs in that second tier are being "overvalued."If you read my post, you'd see that TO has a 2.07 ADP, CJohn 2.11 and Ward 3.01 - with that in mind, Holt at 2.05 doesn't seem overvalued when compared to other WRs not named Moss or Harrison.When compared to the RBs available at the 2.05 spot, though . . .