Holt released by Rams

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by 53Fan

Really? In their first year?
15 actually.

Beat me to it

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Ok, for those of you who don't want Holt, may I ask the reason?

No player in the NFL has declined more since 2006 than Torry Holt. Not one player.

He's just not very good.

[budw38]

Maybe Warner lobbies AZ to sign Holt , They then trade Boldin ?

[MTK]

I don't see the comparison to Thrash. JT is a role player and a special teams guy. He's a #4 type of WR at this point. If you bring in Holt he's a #2. Different players, different roles, different situations altogether.

Holt is not the same guy he was just a few years ago. He's definitely lost a step. We have other needs to fill.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

No player in the NFL has declined more since 2006 than Torry Holt. Not one player.

He's just not very good.

Holt:

06: 93 REC, 1,188 YRDS, 12.8 AVG, and 10 TD's.
07: 93 REC, 1,189 YRDS, 12.8 AVG, and 7 TD's.
08: 64 REC, 796 YRDS, 12.4 AVG, and 3 TD's.

Holt Averages 12 to 14 YRDS per catch since his rookie yr. He has 1,000 yrds for every yr except his rookie and last yr. I doubt seriously his drop off last yr would constitute being on the decline and I find it hard to believe anyone would say he's just not any good when he produces 1,000 yrds, 12 AVG and 7-10 more TD's then Thrash, ARE, Kelly, and Thomas.

Moss has had only three 1,000 yrd season's since his rookie yr. About 12 to 15 yrds avg. and 6 td's on avg. I guess Moss is just not very good either.

[GTripp0012]

Holt peaked though back in 2003. He was still a major part of the offense through 2007, as the receptions and yards show, but his last real, serious pro bowl caliber year was 2004 (his YPC dropped 1.5 yards the next year). That's a really long time ago.

Given, the offense has been in decline since about that point, but let's not ignore the effect that Holt's personal decline has had on that. The Rams were running most of their offense through a borderline No. 1 receiver who once was a fantastic and dynamic weapon for three years. That might have been part of the decline.

Before you go there, I realize that his 2005 season (102 catches for 1331 yards) is absolutely pro-bowl type numbers, but the decline in TD rate and YPC are more worrisome at that point then the fact that the Rams offense was still treating him like an elite target at that point.

But the bigger point is this: the Rams didn't even treat him as a go-to receiver last year in an anemic offense. He's just not a threat to defenses. Period. That's how and why he's declined so far in such a short time. Even as his peripherals were declining, teams treated him as a top target through 2007. But last year, not even remotely so. Carlos Rogers just knocked his ass all over the place when we played them. He was so awful.

[GTripp0012]

Moss has already peaked as well. He actually is a pretty good Holt comparable. He's likely to fall off the point at which we can consider him a starting caliber receiver within a year or two. For 2009 though, Moss figures to be a borderline No. 1, probably more of a No. 2. But like Holt, Moss' last season with strong peripherals was 2006, and he's been significantly less effective the last two seasons.

Holt, at this point, is no longer go-to-receiver material. Basically, you can put him with all the other interchangeable "system" guys (like Randle El). So does Holt fit in our system? Probably not, considering he's never played in anything like the WCO in his career, but I could be wrong here.

The faster Kelly can develop and take the No. 1 target mantle from Moss, the better. If he doesn't by 2010, we're kinda screwed.

[SBXVII]

I don't even know why I'm argueing the case. I really don't care if we sign him or not. I was simply trying to point out that he's not as bad as some have mentioned and that ...

Although he is no longer #1 material (which I know), he's still better then Thrash and would bring more to the table as a WR then Thrash. Yes, Thrash does bring more to the table as a special teamer but not as a WR for which he was brought back to do. My only complaint was that we have a WR who's not being utilized do to production and instead using him on special teams only. In other words he's taking a roster spot in an area of need and they are not using him in the WR capacity (hardly). If we have other people on the roster that can do the special team part better ie; Horton, Thomas, then let Thrash go and pick up another Vet WR who can be used in case Kelly and Thomas don't break out this yr either.

I was not only picking on Thrash though either....I said let Rock go also. I for one can not figure out why the team would keep him. He's not that great at being a RB and never has been. He takes one step forward and two back. He dances around in the back field trying to avoid contact and get taken down all the time. Then once a game he breaks a 40-50 yarder. ooooh aaaaah. That's not impressive. That's mediocre. Portis is impressive. Portis slams the ball down field, runs N/S.

Someone brought up Betts. Betts atleast runs N/S. That's why he filled in admirably. But he's definitly not the same caliber as Portis either. If it came to Betts or Rock I'd let Rock go. Use Betts to KR/PR, he has done it in the past. Or get rid of both and groom two new guys for when Portis starts falling off.

I guess I'm just argueing the same old BS that comes up every yr in different threads. Trade Rock/Betts. Let Rock go. Let Betts go. and yet we keep Thrash who is not special other then the fact he is not bad on special teams, and others replaced him in those duties last yr. or rather beat him to the tackle.

Again I sound like it's a big issue but truly I don't care. Like him, hate him. It doesn't even have to be him. I would just like to see the team bring in a proven WR in case the two new guys don't step it up, which I'm worried about cause I have little faith in Hixon.

[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.

[skinsnut]

Originally Posted by vallin21

Sometimes I'm glad fans aren't GM's because we'd really suck. First off the reason why our offense "sucked" was because our pass pro was awful, it was not the receivers fault. Many people have already said this, you have to give Kelley and Thomas a chance to develope, 1 year is not enough. Don't you realize WR is not a need? What does that tell Thomas and Kelley if we got Holt? You were probably one of those guys that wanted TO in DC. He's 33 and declining it makes no sense to sign him considering he played in the spread O not the WCO. What's up with this love fetish w/ Holt? WE'RE NOT PLAYING FANTASY FOOTBALL DUDE!!! You can't have every big name FA that gets released, you have to be realistic, IT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN BUDDY!

WR not a need?..Ha...that is why the used our best 3 picks last year on pass catchers.

Not WR fault?...too simplified.
So far...Thomas can't run a route and often makes mental errors, Kelly's injuries keep him from playing...and heres a coaching issue...where was our double tight end set for Davis?

I agree that you need to play these guys, but, c'mon...do it in practice...if they can't outperform a "supposed" sucky declining Holt...don't play em...its that simple.
There is no way Thomas or Kelly are even close to Holt at this point...even if he has slowed a bit.
In the old days...we did it this way...
You get the best players...and you play the best players.
If you ever have an opportunity to make your team better you do it.
If the rookies get their panties in a wad...screw em...perform better to earn your right on the field...it only makes them better.

BTW.
I absolutely did not wan't TO, don't start slinging out BS assumptions without doing any research...it only pissed people off....suggesting that I always jump all over any FA is a joke...and I can tell you have done no research at all. Holt is unique...and so is this particular situation...we have a fairly unproductive group of receivers...Holt has no issues, and has had an amazinging consistent career...if your argument is about his decline being real...I understand...if it is about system, I see that...if it is about turf vs grass...again valid....but to put me in a box of FO whores to discredit my point about an individual player only shows you don't understand the argument.

I can be swayed by those who say Holt has declined since many of those with that opinion I hold in high regard. I also understand the point about Special teams.

At this point, I would be excited if we got him but would not be depressed if we didn't. Oline LB DE are greater needs...I just dont see superstars...or even aging ones falling off the trees there...and our D is pretty damn good...Portis is great...so that leaves Oline and WR IF an established #2 reciever falls in your lap without trading draft picks.

That is why this particular FA is different and worthy of discussion.
I personally don't see any harm done to young WR's that don't have a clue yet. Cream always finds a way to rise to the top.

[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?