Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 124

Thread: ESPN Radio: John Clayton - Holt possibly to Jets

  1. #1

    ESPN Radio: John Clayton - Holt possibly to Jets

    Just drove with my brother, and John Clayton was on saying that the Jets may be a suitor for Torry Holt pending what's going to happen with him in St. Louis.

    I'm not sure what to think of this one, however Holt has produced significantly his entire career. Last year with all the injuries on the Rams, his numbers dropped for the first time.

    eason Team Receiving Rushing Fumbles
    G GS Rec Yds Avg Lng TD Att Yds Avg Lng TD FUM Lost
    2008 St. Louis Rams 16 14 64 796 12.4 45T 3 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
    2007 St. Louis Rams 16 16 93 1,189 12.8 40 7 -- -- -- -- -- 2 1
    2006 St. Louis Rams 16 16 93 1,188 12.8 67T 10 -- -- -- -- -- 2 1
    2005 St. Louis Rams 14 14 102 1,331 13.0 44 9 1 2 2.0 2 0 2 1
    2004 St. Louis Rams 16 16 94 1,372 14.6 75T 10 -- -- -- -- -- 3 1
    2003 St. Louis Rams 16 15 117 1,696 14.5 48 12 1 5 5.0 5 0 1 0
    2002 St. Louis Rams 16 11 91 1,302 14.3 58 4 2 18 9.0 14 0 1 1
    2001 St. Louis Rams 16 14 81 1,363 16.8 51 7 2 0 0.0 2 0 2 0
    2000 St. Louis Rams 16 15 82 1,635 19.9 85T 6 2 7 3.5 7 0 2 2
    1999 St. Louis Rams 16 15 52 788 15.2 63T 6 3 25 8.3 14 0 4 2
    TOTAL 869 12,660 14.6 85 74 11 57 5.2 14 0 19 9

    [URL="http://www.nfl.com/players/torryholt/profile?id=HOL771651"]http://www.nfl.com/players/torryholt/profile?id=HOL771651[/URL]

    How do you guys feel about this?

  2. #2
    I don't buy it....Holt's clearly lost a step and would go against everything we've done so far this offseason, which suggests more of a long-term plan in mind. (Hence why we avoided someone like Ray Lewis for someone like Bart Scott).

  3. #3
    My reaction is the same as my reaction to most "maybe the jets will sign X" threads:

    I wouldn't mind him, at the right price - that is, a cost that doesn't harm the team in the future if he's really lost it. We could certainly use another receiver, and its not like bringing him in will retard the development of a younger player (Holt's always struck me as a guy who young players could learn from, in fact). But if it's going to cost some huge signing bonus or salary . . . I'll pass.

  4. #4
    It would provide us some more freedom in the draft, if we were going to take a QB (Sanchez). It would also help bridge the gap if we were going WR at 17 too. A rookie WR would not be of that much help to a Clemens/Ratliff, and a veteran in Holt would help things out.

    That said, I surely hope it's only if he is released. I can't see reason in giving up that high of a pick ( > 5th round) for Holt.

  5. #5
    Trade for Holt, go DE in rd. 1, and WR in rd. 2

  6. #6
    [QUOTE=SUJets1988;3039464]It would provide us some more freedom in the draft, if we were going to take a QB (Sanchez). It would also help bridge the gap if we were going WR at 17 too. A rookie WR would not be of that much help to a Clemens/Ratliff, and a veteran in Holt would help things out.

    That said, I surely hope it's only if he is released. I can't see reason in giving up that high of a pick ( > 5th round) for Holt.[/QUOTE]

    He mentioned him and Orlando Pace and Torry Holt, and what the markets would be for each player should they be let go from the team.

  7. #7
    For a reasonable amount of money, I am all for it.

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=Green Jets & Ham;3039469]I don't think this is Marvin Harrison who is four years older than Holt and clearly done

    I think Holt still has something left in the tank and I would be excited about his addition provided it doesn't cost us any draft picks, JUST MONEY, and provided the price is reasonable on a short term deal

    Even if we draft a WR high, WR's very rarely hit stride as rookies, so Holt could still serve as a Quality veteran who buys us a year to groom the neophyte and bring him along at a steady pace, rather than expect an instant savior[/QUOTE]
    Exactly.

  9. #9
    I wouldn't mind this at all. It would put us in position to really take the BPA in the draft. If a good WR drops great, but if not we can take a DL or CB and be good at WR at least for this year.

  10. #10
    Low money, big incentives and he's a good grab.

    Excellent competitor and that's what we need at every position.

    Like Holt, Bruce would have been cool too. :D

  11. #11
    Why not?

    Lets us do whatever we want in the draft.

  12. #12
    People age at different rates, I saw Torry Holt play a few games last year and I was shocked at how slow he seemed in comparison to back when he was in his prime and in comparison to someone like Donnie Avery. I'd feel better if I had some sort of explanation for it, maybe he was nursing an injury, I don't know. I wish he was.

    Holt was one of my favorite players this past decade, but I just don't think he's got that #1 talent in him anymore. He can probably hang around for a few more years as a #2, but we got one of those already in Cotchery. I guess for the right price he'd make for a nice addition, but I would most definately still want to use our 1st round pick on a Reciever.
    Last edited by Ven0m; 03-08-2009 at 11:27 PM.

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    6,304
    No Thanks.

    If we're going to give a kid thr reins at QB'why not trust the kids who have been actually on the field making plays and those who already have time in the syatem.

    There's 1 thing fans are not taking into consideration here.With the current economy,football teams are going to play alot more kids than sign these high price vets who may be done .

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=Tinstar;3039487]No Thanks.

    If we're going to give a kid thr reins at QB'why not trust the kids who have been actually on the field making plays and those who already have time in the syatem.

    There's 1 thing fans are not taking into consideration here.With the current economy,football teams are going to play alot more kids than sign these high price vets who may be done .[/QUOTE]

    What? The economy is going to have no effect whatsoever on what NFL teams spend on the field. It might effect parking/food/ticket prices at the stadium, but it won't change a thing as far as how close they get to the cap.

    As for having kids at WR, I think adding another veteran to the mix in addition to Cotchery is not a bad idea at all. I don't expect Holt to be the #1, but he can be here for a couple of years while say, Hakeem Nicks, learns the ropes as an NFL WR. It is very rare that a rookie WR comes in and makes a big splash in his first year.

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Cedar Grove, New Jersey
    Posts
    6,759
    trading holt would be a great move for this franchise -- Holt isn't done - the entire st louis rams were terrible last year, i'll take holt. With Owens, Moss, & Welker in the division you need more than Cotchery to compete. Holt/Cotchery for at least a season sounds too tempting to pass. Don't worry about the money or trade, tanny will get it done.

    It's important to enter the draft with as few holes as possible. Always draft BPA. Potentionally acquiring Holt gives us one less thing to worry about. (Ya shoulda stayed Brett!)

  16. #16
    He's due a bonus (1.25 mil) on march 17th. They will probably release him if they can't trade him by then

  17. #17
    [QUOTE=Ven0m;3039482]People age at different rates, I saw Torry Holt play a few games last year and I was shocked at how slow he seemed in comparison to back when he was in his prime and in comparison to someone like Donnie Avery. I'd feel better if I had some sort of explanation for it, maybe he was nursing an injury, I don't know. I wish he was.

    Holt was one of my favorite players this past decade, but I just don't think he's got that #1 talent in him anymore. He can probably hang around for a few more years as a #2, but we got one of those already in Cotchery. I guess for the right price he'd make for a nice addition, but I would most definately still want to use our 1st round pick on a Reciever.[/QUOTE]

    I'm not 100% with it, but he'd take guys off of Cotchery. I don't like this "Cotchery is only a #2 non-sense." He's number two to a true elite like the Johnsons, Boldin, Fitzgerald, Smith, and so on. Otherwise, he's just a WR no team in the league would turn down, and therefore a very high level receiver.

    He'd also be great for the young guys like...all our other WR's will be. I think he'd be help out Cotchery and Stuckey alot, as both have random varying traits of his as a younger player IMO.

    AND he'd let us do whatever we want to do in the draft.
    Last edited by Chica me Tipo; 03-08-2009 at 11:45 PM.

  18. #18
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    6,304
    [QUOTE=SUJets1988;3039492]What? The economy is going to have no effect whatsoever on what NFL teams spend on the field. It might effect parking/food/ticket prices at the stadium, but it won't change a thing as far as how close they get to the cap.

    As for having kids at WR, I think adding another veteran to the mix in addition to Cotchery is not a bad idea at all. I don't expect Holt to be the #1, but he can be here for a couple of years while say, Hakeem Nicks, learns the ropes as an NFL WR. It is very rare that a rookie WR comes in and makes a big splash in his first year.[/QUOTE]

    yea ok.you are probably right.But if i had the choice of paying big money to an old player who is not what he was and is not a special teams help,i pass.I would rather pay Stuckey 200grand and give Mangold his money than give Holt 3 mil and have to cut say a Faneca next season to afford Mangold.
    Last edited by Tinstar; 03-08-2009 at 11:45 PM.

  19. #19
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    2,801
    I'd be fine with getting Holt...as long as we STILL go WR in the first round.

    I don't expect Holt to be productive for more than 1.5 years or so...by which time, hopefully that first round WR will be ready to step in full time.

  20. #20
    [QUOTE=Tinstar;3039502]yea ok.you are probably right.But if i had the choice of paying big money to an old player who is not what he was and is not a special teams help,i pass.I would rather pay Stuckey 200grand and give Mangold his money than give Holt 3 mil and have to cut say a Faneca next season to afford Mangold.[/QUOTE]
    I hear ya, but you can't sign a guy like Stuckey for the salary he's getting. He was a late draft pick that turned out to be pretty good. Once his rookie deal is up, he'll be paid probably 4-5x what he is making now.

    I don't think anyone here wants to give Holt big money. I mean, if we can do something like 2 years/$8-9M, then I'd do it. Anything more, I'll pass and move on, happy that we didn't overpay too badly.

    For that matter, does anyone have an accurate cap # for us after the recent moves?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us