Articles from around the Web
PDF VERSION NOW DISCOUNTED OVER 30%
Click here to buy PDF version.
Click here to buy PDF version
Official Account: @fboutsiders
Scott Kacsmar: @FO_ScottKacsmar
Ben Muth: @FO_WordofMuth
Aaron Schatz: @FO_ASchatz
Vince Verhei: @FO_VVerhei
-- plus --
Bill Connelly: @SBN_BillC
J.J. Cooper: @jjcoop36
Cian Fahey: @Cianaf
Brian Fremeau: @bcfremeau
Tom Gower: @ThomasGower
Andrew Healy: @AndHealy
Rivers McCown: @RiversMcCown
Chad Peltier: @CGPeltier
Matt Waldman: @MattWaldman
Rob Weintraub: @robwein
20 Apr 2010
Well, it's better than starting Sam Aiken, but don't get too excited. After one down year, it was reasonable to expect Holt to rebound in 2009. After two down years... not so much.
Posted by: Aaron Schatz on 20 Apr 2010
23 comments, Last at
03 May 2010, 10:07am by
It's better than starting Sam Aiken... Hopefully he'll be a better fit than Galloway was.
I assume the Pats will be looking on Day 2 for more WR depth.
Its about time that anemic Patriots passing offense got some playmakers.
To be fair, he was receiving passes from Dr. David Garrard and Marc Bulger/Ryan Fitzpatrick. I am sure he doesn't have all the speed and agility anymore, but lets see how he does with capable counterparts this year.
As opposed to Galloway, who had been declining for an elite qb in Tampa?
Galloway's problem was the he showed no desire to actually learn the playbook.
Well, if you can't beat 'em in 2001...
Maybe we can sign Herschel Walker for some RB depth, I hear he keeps himself in fighting shape.
Senior Seau is waiting by the phone, too....
I thought that the Bears should have signed Holt, if only to teach the youngsters how to run Martz's routes (in Martz scheme it's the receivers that are required to adjust, that's why it's easier for the qb).
As a Pat, he'll probably be this year's recipient of the "Shawn Springs Award"
That's why you have a receiver coach. Holt would have done nothing on the field, that the current Bears receivers can't do, doesn't play special teams, and would have blocked young guys from getting more playing time.
Seems like a fairly low-risk move that could pay off. They need another receiver pretty badly, so why not.
I dunno Aaron....sounds much like you said about Moss three years ago. I think Holt will prove to be better than the revolving door of Stallworth, Gaffney, Galloway....
It's not like he's ever going to get double coverage.
Holt is about 4 years older than Moss was when he was traded to the Pats (he also was never as good as Moss was), I think Aaron is pretty safe.
True...but Holt, whom I would argue indeed was better than Moss for a few seasons, isn't being counted on to be the #1 WR either.
Exacerbated, Belichick authors tepid parody.
And in other news, it's official that that Saints will host the Vikings in the Thursday Night opening game.
Sports talk radio and sports message boards are the killing fields of intellectual discourse.
His catch rate has been declining, but I wonder how much of that is eroded skill and how much of that is QB/system he was in.
He was a -4.2% DVOA in 06 and came back pretty well in 07, but then his catch rate also went from a 52% to 62%.
I think he can add value on the field and if nothing else you are paying $1.7 million for some average production as a #3 option and getting a bit of a player coach. I've always heard that Holt was very good at film study and helping other receivers learn the art of the position.
I don't think it's anything to get really excited about either but I think it's a pretty good value pick-up.
At this point in their careers, are Moss and Welker going to approach film differently because of Holt's influence? We're talking about a group of already veteran receivers; a "player coach" has much more value for a team of youngins.
Tate/Edelman. Although Edelman should basically just learn everything from Welker, since they're so similar.
Edelman and Welker aren't really similar players. They were used the same way last year, but Edelman is MUCH faster than Welker, is much bigger, etc.
I knew someone was going to comment on that one... although you didn't accuse me of saying they are similar players because they're both white WRs, which I appreciate.
I don't think they're as different as you do. They were used in the exact same way last year and looked pretty much the same doing it. Edelman has an inch on Welker and is 15 lbs heavier if you believe their listings. Edelman has better straight line speed than Welker (4.52 to 4.68) but Welker is a little quicker on the field. Edelman's 3.92 short shuttle was better than Welker's 4.01 but Wes runs such great routes that he definitely plays quicker.
So basically I don't think they're carbon copies but I do think they are very similar players playing the same role in New England's offense. Both their measurable and the game film seem back that up.
As an aside, best trick play of last year (though it didn't work) was on 3rd and 1, Brady in the gun, Edelman motions across the formation and SUDDENLY TAKES A SNAP FROM CENTER on a sneak. Unfortunately he bobbled the snap. But was a really clever play design.
Moss had two down years....
Nope, one. Moss was actually quite good in Oakland in 2005. Not great, and certainly not near what he did in 2007, but he put up 1005 yards on only 60 catches, for a YPC that was higher than anything since 2000.
The Vikings need offensive line help, while the Bears, Lions, and Packers have significant defensive concerns.
See All XP | NFL XP | College XP
© Football Outsiders, Inc. // Site powered by Stein-Wein // Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties