Holt released by Rams

[vallin21]

For the people comparing Thrash to Holt is irrelevant and stupid. Thrash has always been a #4 and Holt has been a 1-2. The bottom line is Holt is declining and if he wasn't the Rams wouldn't released him. That tells you enough when the Rams release someone, and for the people who say he was released to save cap room that's BS. Holt is not the #1 receiver he once was, which is why they released him.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by vallin21

For the people comparing Thrash to Holt is irrelevant and stupid. Thrash has always been a #4 and Holt has been a 1-2. The bottom line is Holt is declining and if he wasn't the Rams wouldn't released him. That tells you enough when the Rams release someone, and for the people who say he was released to save cap room that's BS. Holt is not the #1 receiver he once was, which is why they released him.

Yes, it's stupid. but when your trying to upgrade why not look to see if you could possibly upgrade across the board to make your team better.

It was very apparent by the opposing comments that Holt is:

1. Better then Thrash.
2. Better then ARE.
3. Better then Kelly and Thomas.
4. Would upgrade this offense.
5. Too old.
6. On the decline.
7. and people would rather stay mediocre and develope Kelly and Thomas instead of having a proven WR to help this team if Kelly and Thomas don't step up this yr again.

No hard feelings. I'm not bedding the dude or anything so I don't care if we pick him up or not. I was simply trying to point out he would upgrade us. As far as trading out Thrash? Who in there right mind would keep him when he had only 1 TD (very productive) and old versus a Holt who usually has 1,000 yrd and has 12yrd avg each yr, and usually no less then 7 TD's? but I was totally wrong. We should keep Thrash. Maybe it will force Kelly and Thomas to step up, hopefully, but this would be my last yr with Hixon if I were the team if he and they not productive.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Yes, it's stupid. but when your trying to upgrade why not look to see if you could possibly upgrade across the board to make your team better.

It was very apparent by the opposing comments that Holt is:

1. Better then Thrash.
2. Better then ARE.
3. Better then Kelly and Thomas.
4. Would upgrade this offense.
5. Too old.
6. On the decline.
7. and people would rather stay mediocre and develope Kelly and Thomas instead of having a proven WR to help this team if Kelly and Thomas don't step up this yr again.

No hard feelings. I'm not bedding the dude or anything so I don't care if we pick him up or not. I was simply trying to point out he would upgrade us. As far as trading out Thrash? Who in there right mind would keep him when he had only 1 TD (very productive) and old versus a Holt who usually has 1,000 yrd and has 12yrd avg each yr, and usually no less then 7 TD's? but I was totally wrong. We should keep Thrash. Maybe it will force Kelly and Thomas to step up, hopefully, but this would be my last yr with Hixon if I were the team if he and they not productive.

ARE is a "proven" WR, though. So you sign Holt and bump ARE to No. 3. Okay, that makes us better in the short term. It also totally blocks the second-year guys from playing in the short term.

So you bump Randle El out of the top three guys to make room for Malcolm Kelly/Devin Thomas to split third receiver reps. Well, now you're not any better in the short-term. Holt plays the same role Randle El plays in the offense, except he has a small learning curve due to the scheme and Randle El is not on the field, rather he's still returning punts which he isn't good at anyway.

Basically, the only way it makes any sense is that we pick him up at a fraction of the cost of Thrash, and then slot him on the bench beneeth Kelly and Thomas as an insurance policy should Moss or Randle El get hurt, while Kelly is not developing. Yeah, I'm sure Holt is coming here to do that.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Basically, the only way it makes any sense is that we pick him up at a fraction of the cost of Thrash, and then slot him on the bench beneeth Kelly and Thomas as an insurance policy should Moss or Randle El get hurt, while Kelly is not developing. Yeah, I'm sure Holt is coming here to do that.

That about sums it up. I am a big fan of Holt. Yes, he is not the receiver he once was. If he were willing to do so, he would be a great help in developing the young guys just by showing them what it takes to be good in this league.
If he were to come in as the number 2 he might be interested. But for him to be No.2 AND allow Kelly and Thomas playing time would pretty much relegating ARE to the five spot (or cutting him). I just don't think that happens.

The way the roster is configured, I just don't see a spot for Holt which, IMHO, is unfortunate.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

ARE is a "proven" WR, though. So you sign Holt and bump ARE to No. 3. Okay, that makes us better in the short term. It also totally blocks the second-year guys from playing in the short term.

So you bump Randle El out of the top three guys to make room for Malcolm Kelly/Devin Thomas to split third receiver reps. Well, now you're not any better in the short-term. Holt plays the same role Randle El plays in the offense, except he has a small learning curve due to the scheme and Randle El is not on the field, rather he's still returning punts which he isn't good at anyway.

Basically, the only way it makes any sense is that we pick him up at a fraction of the cost of Thrash, and then slot him on the bench beneeth Kelly and Thomas as an insurance policy should Moss or Randle El get hurt, while Kelly is not developing. Yeah, I'm sure Holt is coming here to do that.

Yep, that sums it up. It's nice to know that WR's don't change out like CB's, DL, LB's, RB's, S's, and TE's during a game.

[SBXVII]

^Dude it's useless. Holt has 10yrs in the league. 8 seasons of over 1,000yrds. He averages atleast 12yrds per catch. He averages atleast 6 TD's every season. He had only 2 bad seasons in his whole career, his rookie yr and last yr.

.....but, he's on the decline.

I'm with you. Call him old, say he may not fit the system, say he's only good on turff, say he doesn't play special teams. All those are very big issues and would wonder and possibly agree. ....but you can't say he's on the decline after one bad season. Where were you people when the team signed Dockery? How come you guys weren't complaining about how he would retard Chad Rinhart's learning curve? Shouldn't we just stick Chad in and let him grow/learn te job like you guys want to do with Kelly and Thomas?

[MTK]

Holt's YPC has been slipping steadily since 2005. He didn't just hit the wall last year, the signs of his decline have been there for a few years now. He also has a knee problem that is scaring away some teams.

[SBXVII]

^ Good arguement. However looking at the numbers I would almost trade Moss out with Holt. Both are injury prone now so that's a wash. Both are close in age so that's a wash Holt had 8 1,000+ yrd seasons compared to Moss's 3. One of those was last yr at 1,044. Holt had 1189 last yr. A whole 144 more yrds. For someone on the decline he's better then our #1. Having said all this I did not say trade Moss out for Holt.

I suggested trading a player who hardly gets balls thrown his way. One that hardly see's the field as a WR. Thrash. ...and if I'm not mistaken we carried 7 WR's on the team last yr 2 on the practice squad. If I'm correct that would be Holt, Moss, ARE, Thomas, and Kelly, and two non drafted rookies to try and develope. All 5 WR's should get enough playing time.

[JoeRedskin]

I just don't think Holt is coming here to be part of a "WR by committee" where his part of the committee is as the No.2/3 and possibly 4th WR slot. If he is willing to come, great. I'd trade him out for Thrash in a heartbeat.

My guess is that there are several teams where he will be guarranteed a shot at the No. 1 spot or at least be the full time No. 2. Even with declining skills, and as others pointed out, he is an average to good WR with excellent work ethic and habits.

He will probably have a fairly good choice of places to land and get paid solid money (2 to 2.5 times vet min.) with a guarrantee to be a regular starter. I just don't see us paying him that much to be part of the WR committee.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I just don't think Holt is coming here to be part of a "WR by committee" where his part of the committee is as the No.2/3 and possibly 4th WR slot. If he is willing to come, great. I'd trade him out for Thrash in a heartbeat.

My guess is that there are several teams where he will be guarranteed a shot at the No. 1 spot or at least be the full time No. 2. Even with declining skills, and as others pointed out, he is an average to good WR with excellent work ethic and habits.

He will probably have a fairly good choice of places to land and get paid solid money (2 to 2.5 times vet min.) with a guarrantee to be a regular starter. I just don't see us paying him that much to be part of the WR committee.

Finally a good arguement. I can't dissagree. I know there are other teams who would make him their #1 and he would get #1 pay. I just don't buy the whole He's no longer good. but it would be nice if he did take the Skins into consideration and decided he would like to be here. Most likely not though. I'm done. Peace.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Finally a good arguement. I can't dissagree. I know there are other teams who would make him their #1 and he would get #1 pay. I just don't buy the whole He's no longer good. but it would be nice if he did take the Skins into consideration and decided he would like to be here. Most likely not though. I'm done. Peace.

I think several people have been trying to make that same point...but I guess Mr. Laywer Man has a special way with words

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I think several people have been trying to make that same point...but I guess Mr. Laywer Man has a special way with words

What's a Laywer Man? Is that someone who pwactices Waw?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by 53Fan

What's a Laywer Man? Is that someone who pwactices Waw?

Cowwect

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by 53Fan

What's a Laywer Man? Is that someone who pwactices Waw?

I keep pwacticing, but I never seem to get it wight.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I think several people have been trying to make that same point...but I guess Mr. Laywer Man has a special way with words

You're just jealous 'cause good speak with words I can - from Yoda, learned I.