For The Torry Holt Crowd... **Updated** Holt released (post #72)

Randy White

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,167
Reaction score
80
Hostile;2686405 said:
We sign a vet we move WR down in the Draft. I don't want to do that. There is good value where we pick in the 2nd round.

Yes, there is, but drafting a WR in round 2 would be counter productive. They'd be bringing in ANOTHER young guy, who would need time to develop and more than likely won't see much playing time IF any. A 2nd round pick would be a bit too high of a price to pay for right now. The Cowboys already have THREE of those types of receivers ( Miles, Hurd, Stanback ), not to mention that their #1 receiver is 28 years old, and the second receiver is 30 years old but barely 5 full years in the league. That's a very young receivers core as it is.

Bringing in Holt, at a reasonable price, would provide estability and experience. No receiver on the Cowboys roster right has been in critical game situations that Hols has been, much less has caught the passes that Holt has caught in those situations. Down the stretch, and especially in December, that becomes very important.

Don't get me wrong, I want the Cowboys to draft a receiver in this draft now that T.O. is gone, but not within their first 3 picks. I'm thinking middle 4th or 5th round in the range of Patrick Turner from USC, or Greg Carr from FSU, or even Aaron Kelley from Clemson. Somebody who doesn't have to come in this year at all, but has enough potential to develop long term.

:starspin
 

tomson75

Brain Dead Shill
Messages
16,720
Reaction score
1
Randy White;2686459 said:
Yes, there is, but drafting a WR in round 2 would be counter productive. They'd be bringing in ANOTHER young guy, who would need time to develop and more than likely won't see much playing time IF any. The Cowboys already have THREE of those types of receivers ( Miles, Hurd, Stanback )

None of which are guaranteed to have a roster spot after camp. You don't stop bringing in young talent because you have some young talent from three years ago still trying to figure it out. It's a revolving door until you find the right players. Hurd and Stanback are likely getting short on time.
 

mperfection

Active Member
Messages
980
Reaction score
229
Hostile;2686405 said:
We sign a vet we move WR down in the Draft. I don't want to do that. There is good value where we pick in the 2nd round.

Your point is well made. However, I think we can sign Holt and STILL grab one of those WR's you wrote about over in the Draft zone.

In relation to the draft, signing Holt does not/should not necessitate an either/or scenario.
 

Cajuncowboy

Preacher From The Black Lagoon
Messages
27,499
Reaction score
81
tomson75;2686463 said:
None of which are guaranteed to have a roster spot after camp. You don't stop bringing in young talent because you have some young talent form three years ago still trying to figure it out. It's a revolving door until you find the right players. Hurd and Stanback are likely getting short on time.

True enough but that would be like drafting a WR in the first (Traded pick for Roy) and then turning around and drafting another one in the second. The thought of doing that doesn't make sense to me. Now later in the draft if someone we like falls then that's another story, but not at the second round pick.
 

mperfection

Active Member
Messages
980
Reaction score
229
AMERICAS_FAN;2686434 said:
I don't understand why that is necessarily? Any WR we draft would not start in year 1 (or maybe even year 2) anyway, so why not sign Holt for 1-2 years until that rookie grows into the role -- provided Holt's willing to sign with Dallas, that is? If so, then that way Dallas can upgrade the position presently and for the futire with parallel moves in both free agency and the draft.

I mean, if Holt still has 1-2 years of ability in him why not try for him? Other arguments I hear are that it takes way from the younger WRs. That's a fair point, but only considerable if these younger players have more ability than what Holt can bring right now. Unlike T.O., Holt would not manopolize the offense to the point of holding the younger WRs' contributions back. Conversely, I think Holt could complement Williams, Austin and Crayton quite nicely, like he has done all of his career with his other teammates.

So if Holt can provide a real upgrade and is willing to sign, then the last question to answer is whether or not Garrett can use him successfully in his style of offense - whatever that ends up being in 2009 and beyond - in a way that complements the other WRs on the position roster. If Garrett can, then signing Holt to a fair market value contract would be the right move.

:hammer:
 

THUMPER

Papa
Messages
9,522
Reaction score
61
Hostile;2686381 said:
I don't want him at all. Via trade or release. I don't dislike the guy, but I don't want any more 30+ WRs who will command a salary based on their past reputation. I would rather get younger at WR.

Like I said, I don't think it would be the BEST move, but it wouldn't be a BAD one.

A rookie WR isn't likely to play this year which leaves us with Williams, Crayton, Austin & Hurd. That's OK unless someone gets hurt, then we are screwed! Signing Holt to a reasonable contract (short term, 2 years max) gives us some insurance as well as a very good player, until our rookie is ready to step in and start.

If he is looking for a huge payday then he can keep looking, but for a couple mil per year (4-5) I would take him in a heartbeat!
 

Randy White

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,167
Reaction score
80
tomson75;2686463 said:
None of which are guaranteed to have a roster spot after camp.


If none of those guy are guaranteed to have a roster spot after camp, which I agree with, then you're making the assumption that whomever we pick with the 2nd round pick does, correct ? If that's the case, then you're guaranteeing a roster spot to a guy who hasn't earned it yet, but has it because he was picked with a 2nd round choice. That wouldn't be prudent thing to do in this case. It's not as if the talent we're going to draft in the 2nd round ( at WR ) is so much more indisputably better than what we have right now on the roster.

You don't stop bringing in young talent because you have some young talent form three years ago still trying to figure it out. It's a revolving door until you find the right players. Hurd and Stanback are likely getting short on time.

I agree, which is why I especifically said that I'd like the Cowboys to draft a receiver in this draft now that T.O. is gone. I just wouldn't spend any of the top 3 picks on one ( unless Crabtree or Maclin falls there, of course ), nor would I pass on signing Torry Holt ( for a reasonable price ) to draft a WR with the first pick.

:starspin
 

silver

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,873
Reaction score
1,697
I don't know what the big deal it is for signing Holt.

Is not as if he'll be a progress stopper, none of our returning WR's are inexperienced. They should've by now shown if they were worth the investment. I can see Williams, Austin and Crayton making the squad (the latter two shouldn't be buying green bananas either), but I'm not sure the rest of them, including Hurd and Stanback, will ever be anything more than role players.

I'm all for bringing Holt as insurance and drafting a speedy/returner type to add depth.

If we can invest like we do at LB, I don't see why we can't take the same approach at WR.
 

RoadRunner

New Member
Messages
2,809
Reaction score
0
I would rather sign Pace than Holt. Offensive line is a huge worry going into next year.
 

silver

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,873
Reaction score
1,697
Cajuncowboy;2686468 said:
True enough but that would be like drafting a WR in the first (Traded pick for Roy) and then turning around and drafting another one in the second. The thought of doing that doesn't make sense to me. Now later in the draft if someone we like falls then that's another story, but not at the second round pick.

we've blown enough second rounders recently (Johnson, Rogers, Fasano) for this to matter.
 

silver

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,873
Reaction score
1,697
RoadRunner;2686491 said:
I would rather sign Pace than Holt. Offensive line is a huge worry going into next year.

if the same rules apply and Pace comes in cheap I don't see why not. we can even do both.
 

tomson75

Brain Dead Shill
Messages
16,720
Reaction score
1
Cajuncowboy;2686468 said:
True enough but that would be like drafting a WR in the first (Traded pick for Roy) and then turning around and drafting another one in the second. The thought of doing that doesn't make sense to me. Now later in the draft if someone we like falls then that's another story, but not at the second round pick.

Lmao...you're the anti-Snyder. That sounds like something he'd do.

I agree to an extent. I'm not a huge fan of the idea of going WR early either, but I wouldn't rule it out with our first pick, either. If the talent and value is there, you don't pass on it IMO.

Randy White;2686478 said:
If none of those guy are guaranteed to have a roster spot after camp, which I agree with, then you're making the assumption that whomever we pick with the 2nd round pick does, correct ? If that's the case, then you're guaranteeing a roster spot to a guy who hasn't earned it yet, but has it because he was picked with a 2nd round choice. That wouldn't be prudent thing to do in this case. It's not as if the talent we're going to draft in the 2nd round ( at WR ) is so much more indisputably better than what we have right now on the roster.

I wouldn't be guaranteeing the rookie a roster spot, either. He'd have to earn it just like everyone else IMO....but if he didn't, I'd be have some serious talks with the scouting department.

...and while I agree that the talent in the draft isn't guaranteed to be any better than what we currently have on the roster, we do already know what we have on the roster...and if they aren't showing improvement, or becoming the players that we thought they would after being given the opportunity....it's time to give the opportunity to someone else. I'm talking to you, STANBACK.

I like the idea of continually churning the bottom of the roster. Especially at WR and RB.

I agree, which is why I especifically said that I'd like the Cowboys to draft a receiver in this draft now that T.O. is gone. I just wouldn't spend any of the top 3 picks on one ( unless Crabtree or Maclin falls there, of course ), nor would I pass on signing Torry Holt ( for a reasonable price ) to draft a WR with the first pick.

:starspin

I wouldn't necessarily take a WR with the first pick with, or without, signing Torry Holt. I'd be fine with getting a young wideout on day two...i just want some youth in the mix. Holt, I could do without altogether. Nothing against him, except that I don't want him here.
 

ZeroClub

just trying to get better
Messages
7,619
Reaction score
1
About how many roster spots do we expect to be available for WRs?

Williams + Crayton + Austin + Hurd + Stanback + Holt + Rookie = 7
 

Randy White

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,167
Reaction score
80
RoadRunner;2686491 said:
I would rather sign Pace than Holt. Offensive line is a huge worry going into next year.


and you want Pace ?

Might as well keep Proctor.
 

Randy White

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,167
Reaction score
80
tomson75;2686498 said:
I wouldn't be guaranteeing the rookie a roster spot, either. He'd have to earn it just like everyone else IMO....but if he didn't, I'd be have some serious talks with the scouting department.

...and while I agree that the talent in the draft isn't guaranteed to be any better than what we currently have on the roster, we do already know what we have on the roster...and if they aren't showing improvement, or becoming the players that we thought they would after being given the opportunity....it's time to give the opportunity to someone else. I'm talking to you, STANBACK.


Well, keep in mind that we just offer Hurd and Miles contracts big enough that qualify them with 2nd round pick if we lose them through FA. That means that same conversation you'd have with the scouting dpt if whichever WR we picked in the 2nd round doesn't make the team, applies to them too.

Stanback is a long term project. His spot on the roster shouldn't dictate anything the Cowboys do, and I'm sure it doesn't, other than to pause and think about bringing in another project receiver with a high pick.

I wouldn't necessarily take a WR with the first pick with, or without, signing Torry Holt. I'd be fine with getting a young wideout on day two...i just want some youth in the mix. Holt, I could do without altogether. Nothing against him, except that I don't want him here.

Fair enough.
 

Randy White

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,167
Reaction score
80
ZeroClub;2686500 said:
About how many roster spots do we expect to be available for WRs?

Williams + Crayton + Austin + Hurd + Stanback + Holt + Rookie = 7

Good question.

Assuming that rookie is drafted with a 4th or 5th round draft pick, I expect Austin, Hurd, Stanback, and Rookie to fight it out for 3 remaining spots, after RW, PC, and Holt ( carrying 6 receivers ). Keep in mind that Hurd and Austin are special team players as well, and Stanback has some experience at returning kickoffs.
 

speedkilz88

Well-Known Member
Messages
36,949
Reaction score
23,097
ZeroClub;2686500 said:
About how many roster spots do we expect to be available for WRs?

Williams + Crayton + Austin + Hurd + Stanback + Holt + Rookie = 7
Typically between 5-7. Six is most likely but they could always fit 7 if they absolutely didn't want to let someone go. It helps when they are good STs players.
 

wileedog

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,356
Reaction score
2,393
ZeroClub;2686500 said:
About how many roster spots do we expect to be available for WRs?

Williams + Crayton + Austin + Hurd + Stanback + Holt + Rookie = 7

I won't cry if Hurd or Stanback don't make it out of camp.
 

LittleBoyBlue

Redvolution
Messages
35,766
Reaction score
8,411
dadymat;2686447 said:
marvin.jpg

I wanna laugh but I dont get it.



BraveHeartFan;2686458 said:
Out of curiousity what WRs do you see sitting there at that point in the second round that you're certain would come in and give you what a Torry Holt can, right out of the gates?

That's my only issue here. We have young recievers. Having a vet like Holt around to help them out wouldn't upset me. It also wouldn't upset me if we just go with Williams, Crayton, and Austin and let them go that way.

But this idea that we have to, or should, pass on Holt simply because he's what, 32, for the sake of getting younger at WR doesn't seem quite right to me. The rest of our recievers are under 30, except maybe Crayton is he 30 right now...so I don't see getting younger at WR as the most pressing need with our second round pick.

Again unless we make some moves and wind up with another 2nd rounder that is.

I hear what you are saying. I just hope that our "braintrust" are doing the right thing and maybe find something of value or just get plain lucky in the earlier rounds. Who knows. Hindsight is 20-20 on the WR's drafted in the NFL's past in later rounds.

I am not against bringing Holt in for a deal.
 
Top