Re: Holt released by Rams
 

i say pass but holt is better than moss to say hes not would be absurd

Re: Holt released by Rams
 

I say pass on Holt, let's give the young WRs more playing time.

Re: Holt released by Rams
 

[quote=Ruhskins;536997]I say pass on Holt, let's give the young WRs more playing time.[/quote]

I totally agree

Re: Holt released by Rams
 

[quote=Mattyk72;536821]I agree. We've got two young WRs to develop, it doesn't make much sense to chase an aging WR who has clearly lost a step. We have other more pressing needs.[/quote]


Two young Wrs that are more than likely going to be Taylor Jacobs redux, not to mention a shorty in Moss that is getting banged up, and ARE that is unreliable. Face it, Holt is an upgrade even with his age.

Re: Holt released by Rams
 

It would not hurt to bring him in and put him through a workout ? If he can still run and shows a good burst , make him an offer , if Holt signs and that does not motivate the other wr's , nothing will . I will assume that the young guys have shown enough good things if we do not make Holt an offer . The O-Line is still our #1 issue .

Re: Holt released by Rams
 

[quote=budw38;537017]It would not hurt to bring him in and put him through a workout ? If he can still run and shows a good burst , make him an offer , if Holt signs and that does not motivate the other wr's , nothing will . I will assume that the young guys have shown enough good things if we do not make Holt an offer . The O-Line is still our #1 issue .[/quote]

mark my words...despite the Jet's denial... Holt will be a Jet and be back with Coach Henry Ellard..perfect replacement for Coles

Re: Holt released by Rams
 

[quote=KI Skins Fan;536989]Holt's numbers were better than ARE's.[/quote]

Not to mention that he has had 1,000 yrd season every yr except last. He has caught atleast 5 td's a yr mostly 7-10 every yr except last. If everyone is looking at last yr they are sadly mistaken to his talent.

He's definitly an upgrade over Thrash. I would cut Thrash...you know ...the guy who can only get 1 Td a yr if he's lucky. Bring in Holt and let the younger guys play. Holts aging. He is a #1 who would help out the team but I would use him sparingly and in certain packages to create mismatches. Atleast we would get more TD's perhaps and a true #1 until Kelly and Thomas step up and depth.

Re: Holt released by Rams
 

[quote=SBXVII;537038]Not to mention that he has had 1,000 yrd season every yr except last. He has caught atleast 5 td's a yr mostly 7-10 every yr except last. If everyone is looking at last yr they are sadly mistaken to his talent.

Bring in Holt and let the younger guys play. Holts aging. He is a #1 who would help out the team but I would use him sparingly and in certain packages to create mismatches. Atleast we would get more TD's perhaps and a true #1 until Kelly and Thomas step up and depth.[/quote]

if the younger guys are going to play..there should be no touchs for Holt..
Moss and Cooley will still get the ball..hopefully the other guys will earn their
looks

Re: Holt released by Rams
 

[quote=terpsez11;537039]if the younger guys are going to play..there should be no touchs for Holt..
Moss and Cooley will still get the ball..hopefully the other guys will earn their
looks[/quote]


and....if the younger guys don't show anything like last yr? what's our game plan? play the same WR's Moss, ARE, and Thrash. You all keep mentioning Cooley, keep in mind he's a TE not a WR. Yes he does catch the ball but he's not a #1 WR. So what's the game plan if Kelly and Thomas still are not getting open or running right routes?

It's been said it takes 2-3 yrs for WR's to become great. We need great now.

Re: Holt released by Rams
 

[quote=SBXVII;537041]and....if the younger guys don't show anything like last yr? what's our game plan? play the same WR's Moss, ARE, and Thrash. You all keep mentioning Cooley, keep in mind he's a TE not a WR. Yes he does catch the ball but he's not a #1 WR. So what's the game plan if Kelly and Thomas still are not getting open or running right routes?

It's been said it takes 2-3 yrs for WR's to become great. We need great now.[/quote]

You're not going to develop the young guys if you keep putting them on the back burner. They need to play now. Sure there's a chance one or both doesn't work out, but you're never going to know unless you play them.

Re: Holt released by Rams
 

Picking up another WR at this point is a worthless move if JC cannot get him the ball. I say we stick with what we have and if our rookies and/or JC cannot get the job done then we address that next year. People say the skins don't have any type of plan but then turn around everytime so was is dropped by a team want us to run out and sign them.

Re: Holt released by Rams
 

Holt has like 10 tds the last 2 seasons. He used to average 10 a season. If he was super-cheap I say yeah, But we can't pay him alot we don't have alot and have bigger concerns. Give the rookies a chance they've shown some promise at times, And how many times did JC overthrow him. Anyway Zorn is still ahead of expectation so everyone coming back for a 2nd year with Zorn can only be good.

Re: Holt released by Rams
 

[quote=firstdown;537046]Picking up another WR at this point is a worthless move if JC cannot get him the ball. I say we stick with what we have and if our rookies and/or JC cannot get the job done then we address that next year. People say the skins don't have any type of plan but then turn around everytime so was is dropped by a team want us to run out and sign them.[/quote]

You guys are funny. I don't mean to say lets pick up another WR and screw the OL. I was talking about picking up Holt and cutting Thrash. Thrash's whole career he never had a season where he got 1,000 yrds. Nor did he have like 10 TD's. So to cut him would be no harm done. Bringing in Holt would add a TD or two and the kids could learn from the best. I also never said lets bring in Holt, keep Thrash and not play Kelly and Thomas.

I could see Holt, Moss, and Kelly on the field. Maybe even a 4 set with Thomas. I probably would relegate ARE to 3rd or 4th WR spot.

Re: Holt released by Rams
 

Thrash's real value is on special teams. I'm not talking about returns. I'm talking about tackles, blocks, and the numerous times he's downed the ball deep in enemy territory. It doesn't make sense to bring Holt in to replace that, mainly because that's not what Holt does.

Re: Holt released by Rams
 

I would be more in favor of spending more for Holt and cutting Thrash if Holt could play special teams. A younger guy could add more to teams and we tend to forget how bad we sucked on teams last year. There are only so many roster spots. We can keep taking away from teams if we want to, but then don't complain when we can't get good field position because ST's suck.

Re: Holt released by Rams
 

I guess we were thinking the same thing around the same time Smoot.

Re: Holt released by Rams
 

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

You can't say he's too old, we have Thrash on the team who is older.

You can't say he sucks because of one bad yr, due to team injuries. That would be like saying JC sucks simply cause the OL had issues.

You can't say he's another teams cast off cause I think most of us agree he was let go due to his high salary not due to his production last yr.

Most would agree he's an upgrade to our WR corpse so the only reason I can figure out is that you all just want to see what Kelly and Thomas bring to the table and so they will get experience. I'll agree the more playing time they get the better they will be, but I'm baffled as to why anyone would want to keep Thrash over Holt?

Everyone wanted a young WR out of the draft or most did. We got two. Everyone was satisfied thinking they were going to start right a way and be our CJ, T.O., or Randy Moss. How wrong we were. One didn't get in due to injuries the other played a limited role and only caught what....2 passes? I would count the third but is was brought back. So if you ask me this yr was a wash. If they get any significant playing time this yr I would count it as their Rookie yr playing. Especially for Kelly.

Having said that you guys are willing to bank that our two WR's from last yrs draft are going to come out and knock the socks off other teams? I have faith in the team but would always like an insurance policy in case for what ever reason Kelly has to go under the knife again, or Thomas still has not matured and not running good routes. If for any reason the two don't step up atleast I would feel more confortable going into the season with Moss, Holt, ARE instead of Moss, ARE, Thrash.

Re: Holt released by Rams
 

[quote=SmootSmack;537061]Thrash's real value is on special teams. I'm not talking about returns. I'm talking about tackles, blocks, and the numerous times he's downed the ball deep in enemy territory. It doesn't make sense to bring Holt in to replace that, mainly because that's not what Holt does.[/quote]


I agree his true and only value is to be a gunner. but if I'm not mistaken I thought Horton and some one other then Thrash and Rock got most of the tackles on SP's? I think it was....ummm..Thomas. If other people can do it then let Thrash go.

Re: Holt released by Rams
 

[quote=SBXVII;537066]Ok, for those of you who don't want Holt, may I ask the reason?

You can't say he's too old, we have Thrash on the team who is older.

You can't say he sucks because of one bad yr, due to team injuries. That would be like saying JC sucks simply cause the OL had issues.

You can't say he's another teams cast off cause I think most of us agree he was let go due to his high salary not due to his production last yr.

Most would agree he's an upgrade to our WR corpse so the only reason I can figure out is that you all just want to see what Kelly and Thomas bring to the table and so they will get experience. I'll agree the more playing time they get the better they will be, but I'm baffled as to why anyone would want to keep Thrash over Holt?

Everyone wanted a young WR out of the draft or most did. We got two. [B]Everyone was satisfied thinking they were going to start right a way and be our CJ, T.O., or Randy Moss.[/B] How wrong we were. [B]One didn't get in due to injuries the other played a limited role and only caught what....2 passes?[/B] I would count the third but is was brought back. So if you ask me this yr was a wash. If they get any significant playing time this yr I would count it as their Rookie yr playing. Especially for Kelly.

Having said that you guys are willing to bank that our two WR's from last yrs draft are going to come out and knock the socks off other teams? I have faith in the team but would always like an insurance policy in case for what ever reason Kelly has to go under the knife again, or Thomas still has not matured and not running good routes. If for any reason the two don't step up atleast I would feel more confortable going into the season with Moss, Holt, ARE instead of Moss, ARE, Thrash.[/quote]
Really? In their first year?
15 actually.

Re: Holt released by Rams
 

[quote=SBXVII;537066]Ok, for those of you who don't want Holt, may I ask the reason?

You can't say he's too old, we have Thrash on the team who is older.[/quote]

I'm not against cutting Thrash. But I don't see the value of cutting and old veteran who's currently our 5th or 6th receiver/special teams ace to bring in another old veteran WR who's not going to want to do the little things Thrash does and would probably impede the development of Kelly and Thomas

[quote]You can't say he sucks because of one bad yr, due to team injuries. That would be like saying JC sucks simply cause the OL had issues.[/quote]

I don't think he sucks at all

[quote]Most would agree he's an upgrade to our WR corpse so the only reason I can figure out is that you all just want to see what Kelly and Thomas bring to the table and so they will get experience. I'll agree the more playing time they get the better they will be, but I'm baffled as to why anyone would want to keep Thrash over Holt?[/quote]

Corpse? Freudian slip there

[quote]Everyone wanted a young WR out of the draft or most did. We got two. Everyone was satisfied thinking they were going to start right a way and be our CJ, T.O., or Randy Moss. How wrong we were. One didn't get in due to injuries the other played a limited role and only caught what....2 passes? I would count the third but is was brought back. So if you ask me this yr was a wash. If they get any significant playing time this yr I would count it as their Rookie yr playing. Especially for Kelly.

Having said that you guys are willing to bank that our two WR's from last yrs draft are going to come out and knock the socks off other teams? I have faith in the team but would always like an insurance policy in case for what ever reason Kelly has to go under the knife again, or Thomas still has not matured and not running good routes. If for any reason the two don't step up atleast I would feel more confortable going into the season with Moss, Holt, ARE instead of Moss, ARE, Thrash.[/quote]

I think Thomas had like 15 catches

Re: Holt released by Rams
 

[quote=53Fan;537068]Really? In their first year?
15 actually.[/quote]

Beat me to it

Re: Holt released by Rams
 

[quote=SBXVII;537066]Ok, for those of you who don't want Holt, may I ask the reason?[/quote]No player in the NFL has declined more since 2006 than Torry Holt. Not one player.

He's just not very good.

Re: Holt released by Rams
 

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

Re: Holt released by Rams
 

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.

Re: Holt released by Rams
 

[quote=GTripp0012;537074]No player in the NFL has declined more since 2006 than Torry Holt. Not one player.

He's just not very good.[/quote]

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.

Re: Holt released by Rams
 

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.

Re: Holt released by Rams
 

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.

Re: Holt released by Rams
 

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.

Re: Holt released by Rams
 

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.

Re: Holt released by Rams
 

[quote=vallin21;537189]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.[/quote]

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 [B]better[/B].

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.

Re: Holt released by Rams
 

[quote=SBXVII;537281]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 [B]better[/B].

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.[/quote]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.

Re: Holt released by Rams
 

[quote=GTripp0012;537306]Basically, [B]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.[/B] Yeah, I'm sure Holt is coming here to do that.[/quote]

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.

Re: Holt released by Rams
 

[quote=GTripp0012;537306]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.

[B]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.[/B]

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.[/quote]

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.

Re: Holt released by Rams
 

[quote=vallin21;536858]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 [B]was not the receivers fault.[/B] Many people have already said this, you have to give Kelley and Thomas a chance to develope, [B]1 year is not enough.[/B] [B]Don't you realize WR is not a need?[/B] What does that tell Thomas and Kelley if we got Holt? [B]You were probably one of those guys that wanted TO in DC.[/B] 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![/quote]

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.

Re: Holt released by Rams
 

^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?

Re: Holt released by Rams
 

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.

Re: Holt released by Rams
 

^ 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.

Re: Holt released by Rams
 

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.

Re: Holt released by Rams
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;537542]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.[/quote]

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.

Re: Holt released by Rams
 

[quote=SBXVII;537622]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.[/quote]

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