Torry Holt's Luck Ran Out (1 Viewer)

[9428]

What R U talkin' bout?The entire thread was "should you trade Holt now with his high value." Croc may have been right that Bruce was on his way to "balancing the numbers" but:1) Including their playoff performance is ridiulous. PLAYOFF NUMBERS don't count last time I checked in my redraft leagues. Well, they count, but they occur after the FF Super Bowl so they are irrelevant for the FF purposes I was discussing with Croc.2) Their numbers did NOT even out b/c Bruce was injured and you would have lost that trade big-time if you traded out Holt for Bruce and a player. Over those last 8 weeks - when you are in your playoff push and playoff run, Bruce = 52 points overall (or 6.5/game under standard scoring) and Holt = 89, or over 11 points a game. Pick the date of Croc's and my discussion, and then use points from that date forward. But, if you insist on using the last 6 weeks, fine:Holt - 556/2 = 67 Holt averages 11+ /gameBruce - 222/4 = 46 Bruce averages 7.6/gameStill no 1-1 normalization of numbers. And, that's standardized scoring - my league rewards an extra 3 points for going over 100 - which makes Holt even MORE valuable. Some league reward points/receptions - making Holt yet more valuable.3) Why the heck would I predict injury in a trade? I would not bring up "Bruce'll get injured" in the discussion with Croc about numbers evening out - my point was numbers won't necessarily even out just b/c of statisticval averages - and they DID NOT in this case.I still fail to see your major malfunction here, or why you have a bug up your bum about this issue, and about my answer to it. I really believe Crioc would be disgusted with the way you've carriued his argument. See, he argued from a point of intellect, with common assertions, that did not take assunmoptions or massaging numbers. He took the numbers as they actually were and used them to support his argument.And, again, I'm out.

I included the playoff game because it further solidified the trend (one of your words) of Bruce playing closer to Holt's level. I'm not arguing whether or not one should have traded Holt for Bruce and an upgrade; I'm using the information available to try and determine whether Croc's assertion was correct. Obviously, neither he nor you nor anyone else could know that Bruce would sprain his ankle and not produce for the final two games. For you to now average in those zeroes in an attempt to prove after the fact that Croc was "mostly" wrong is disingenous. If Holt had torn up his knee in Week 10, I wouldn't be sitting here arguing that a freak injury had proven Smlevin "mostly wrong."In fact, Bruce DID close the gap between himself and Holt in the games that they both played in the second half and Bruce DID score four TDs to Holt's three in the second half of the season despite being injured in the final two games. In fact, Croc's prediction was absolutely correct.

 

[smlevin]

Fine - whatever - don't care - you absolutely bore the heck out of me. You are as blind to reason as Bristol if you think Croc was "absolutely right." The best you can say is "the numbers seemed to be heading that way, but they did not bear out his theory."Averaged in the zeroes to prove the point about the trade being bad. Averages per game they both played STILL weren't one for one - and you can NOT use the playoff game if you object to me including the games Bruce didn't pay DURING THE FANTASY SEASON. Edit to add: what's next - reduce it to a small three game span when they both played and were healthy, but scored about even fantasy-wise?Croc argued on a level playing field. I don't know what you are talking about or why you are sniffing his jock to prove him right, enjoy the smell - just make sure to stay off mine, mmmK?

 

[Bristol]

Holt overall: 117 catches, 1696 yards, 12 TDsHolt, last 8 weeks: 54/718/3It is clear his TD numbers declined over the last 8 weeks, but those TDs, or extra yardage, did not go to Bruce. He MAY have experienced a dip in TDs due to the return of Faulk, as a projection of his TDs would give him only 6 or 7 on the year - which were his '99-'02 averages for TDs on the year.Someone else can figure out whether the St Lou rush TDs increased over the last 8 games while the reception TDs declined - that is the true test of whether Faulk's rushing TDs ineterfered with Holts' TD numbers, or whether it was something else - like Dane Looker's emergence or Bulger's decline in TDs and increase in INTs - I think it is option #2 - the decline in Bulger's productivity created Holt's TD decline.My argument is based on 10 TDs versus 13 INTs in the last 8 weeks as opposed to 22 TDs versus 22 INTs overall.

Thank you for being a stand up guy smellvin!! Although you actually didn't say it, my statement was proven RIGHT!!! Holt did decline after the return of Faulk and his numbers did take a hit. As I said from the beginning, he would still get his yardage (because that is what he does). Make any excuses you want for why his TD performance went down, but we all know that Faulk did make a difference.I will now accept you apology for the comments you have made for me through this season. I know what I am talking about. It's now time for you to own up to the fact. Say it with me now:BRISTOL WAS RIGHT!!!!!

 

[Bristol]

You are as blind to reason as Bristol if you think Croc was "absolutely right."

Who's blind????You should point the finger at yourself. If you can't admit that the decline in Holt's TDs were in a direct correlation with the return of Faulk, then you need to get your eyes checked. The numbers speak for themselves. Open your eyes and your mind.I WAS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!!!!

 

[Big Score]

Holt overall: 117 catches, 1696 yards, 12 TDs

Holt, last 8 weeks: 54/718/3

It is clear his TD numbers declined over the last 8 weeks, but those TDs, or extra yardage, did not go to Bruce. He MAY have experienced a dip in TDs due to the return of Faulk, as a projection of his TDs would give him only 6 or 7 on the year - which were his '99-'02 averages for TDs on the year.

Someone else can figure out whether the St Lou rush TDs increased over the last 8 games while the reception TDs declined - that is the true test of whether Faulk's rushing TDs ineterfered with Holts' TD numbers, or whether it was something else - like Dane Looker's emergence or Bulger's decline in TDs and increase in INTs - I think it is option #2 - the decline in Bulger's productivity created Holt's TD decline.

My argument is based on 10 TDs versus 13 INTs in the last 8 weeks as opposed to 22 TDs versus 22 INTs overall.

Thank you for being a stand up guy smellvin!! Although you actually didn't say it, my statement was proven RIGHT!!! Holt did decline after the return of Faulk and his numbers did take a hit. As I said from the beginning, he would still get his yardage (because that is what he does). Make any excuses you want for why his TD performance went down, but we all know that Faulk did make a difference.

I will now accept you apology for the comments you have made for me through this season. I know what I am talking about. It's now time for you to own up to the fact.

Say it with me now:

BRISTOL WAS RIGHT!!!!!

The Torry Holt that you have all grown to love over the past 3 to 4 weeks will disappear starting this week. With the return of Marshall Faulk, all of the TD's and yardage that he has been getting recently will vanish in the blink of an eye and he will return to the Torry Holt of old.

Hope everyone was able to dump him off the past couple of weeks. If not, this upcoming week, may be your last chance to get some big names for him.

Marshall is the centerpiece of the Rams team and will command both the yardage and TD's when he returns. It doesn't look good for Holt owners!!

This is my exact prediction for when Faulk returned

Sorry Bristol, but you predicted that both his TD's & YARDAGE would "vanish in the blink of an eye", to use your exact words.You couldn't have been more wrong if you'd tried.

 

[Bristol]

Holt overall: 117 catches, 1696 yards, 12 TDs

Holt, last 8 weeks: 54/718/3

It is clear his TD numbers declined over the last 8 weeks, but those TDs, or extra yardage, did not go to Bruce.  He MAY have experienced a dip in TDs due to the return of Faulk, as a projection of his TDs would give him only 6 or 7 on the year - which were his '99-'02 averages for TDs on the year.

Someone else can figure out whether the St Lou rush TDs increased over the last 8 games while the reception TDs declined - that is the true test of whether Faulk's rushing TDs ineterfered with Holts' TD numbers, or whether it was something else - like Dane Looker's emergence or Bulger's decline in TDs and increase in INTs - I think it is option #2 - the decline in Bulger's productivity created Holt's TD decline.

My argument is based on 10 TDs versus 13 INTs in the last 8 weeks as opposed to 22 TDs versus 22 INTs overall.

Thank you for being a stand up guy smellvin!! Although you actually didn't say it, my statement was proven RIGHT!!! Holt did decline after the return of Faulk and his numbers did take a hit. As I said from the beginning, he would still get his yardage (because that is what he does). Make any excuses you want for why his TD performance went down, but we all know that Faulk did make a difference.

I will now accept you apology for the comments you have made for me through this season. I know what I am talking about. It's now time for you to own up to the fact.

Say it with me now:

BRISTOL WAS RIGHT!!!!!

The Torry Holt that you have all grown to love over the past 3 to 4 weeks will disappear starting this week. With the return of Marshall Faulk, all of the TD's and yardage that he has been getting recently will vanish in the blink of an eye and he will return to the Torry Holt of old.

Hope everyone was able to dump him off the past couple of weeks. If not, this upcoming week, may be your last chance to get some big names for him.

Marshall is the centerpiece of the Rams team and will command both the yardage and TD's when he returns. It doesn't look good for Holt owners!!

This is my exact prediction for when Faulk returned

Sorry Bristol, but you predicted that both his TD's & YARDAGE would "vanish in the blink of an eye", to use your exact words.You couldn't have been more wrong if you'd tried.

Really? This is what I said. Get the facts before you spoutr off again.

I think it is wishful thinking on most of your parts. Faulk always has and will continue to be the focal point of that offense. It really doesn't matter what rapport Holt has with Bulger at this point. Martz will go back to Faulk over and over again.

Why do you think that Torry Holt was only a yardage WR up until this year? It's because the TD's are reserved for Marshall.

By not looking at the big picture, you are depriving yourself of an opportunity to trade away a high value guy while he still has high value. It's nice to hope that he will maintain his pace and continue to score at will, but in reality, after this week, those days are gone. Sure, it was nice while it lasted, but let's look at things logically.

Welcome back Torry Holt 5 receptions for 80 and 0 TD's!!!

 

[Big Score]

I'm pretty sure I have my facts in order Bristol as I'm only quoting exactly what you said. It was the second post of this entire thread and these are your words.

The Torry Holt that you have all grown to love over the past 3 to 4 weeks will disappear starting this week. With the return of Marshall Faulk, all of the TD's and yardage that he has been getting recently will vanish in the blink of an eye and he will return to the Torry Holt of old.

{The above is a quote that you specifically referred to and below are your precise words in regards to the quote.}"This is my exact prediction for when Faulk returned"

Are you now trying to say you didn't post the above?

 

[smlevin]

Who's blind????You should point the finger at yourself. If you can't admit that the decline in Holt's TDs were in a direct correlation with the return of Faulk, then you need to get your eyes checked. The numbers speak for themselves. Open your eyes and your mind.I WAS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!!!!

You aren't "right" until you PROVE THE BELOW STATEMENT:

Someone else can figure out whether the St Lou rush TDs increased over the last 8 games while the reception TDs declined - that is the true test of whether Faulk's rushing TDs ineterfered with Holts' TD numbers, or whether it was something else - like Dane Looker's emergence or Bulger's decline in TDs and increase in INTs - I think it is option #2 - the decline in Bulger's productivity created Holt's TD decline.My argument is based on 10 TDs versus 13 INTs in the last 8 weeks as opposed to 22 TDs versus 22 INTs overall.

That's my statement above - you go get the numbers, and then I'll make a decision on whether you were right or not, or whether throwing more INTs and less TDs by Bulger was the reason. There is no "arguing" with Bristol - there is absolute statements, leading to him making more absolute statements. And if you find the premise of his argument, he goes and changes his premise. Bring numbers, argument, and reason to the table, and we'll talk:You need: StLou's rushing TDs up to week 9 (their bye was in week 5), and then the last 8 weeks.Faulk's rushing TDs for the last 8 games, and the entire teams' rushing TDs for that period.The reception TD numbers up to week 9 and then the last 8 weeksAnd, finally - you need the number of attempts Bulger threw up to week 9, and then the last 8 weeks - so we can see whether his increased INTs stole some of the receivers' TDs.Bring that, we'll get this discussion going again. I'm sure there are plenty of folks here ready to talk with you again, Bristol - esp. after the Eagles lost for the third year in a row while on the doorstep.

 

[TheFanatic]

I'm really sorry I missed out on all this fun. Had an insanely busy schedule from around late November till early Feb. I missed about 3 pages of Briss bashing. Ah, how things change yet they stay the same.

Briss is still claiming to be correct, but is only showing his ignorance with every post. Ah well....At least he came back to the board. He rand and hid there for a while.

I can't wait to see his newsletter again and rip that to shreds yet again!!!

 

[Morton]

 

[Marc Levin]