sonnyboy;2688906 said:
I'm going to qualify my remarks here.
I do not know much of Holt's game. Not sure how close he is to the player I know he was 3-4 years ago.
So I'm not going to stand on my head screaming that we have to sign this guy.
With that said, I don't understand how many here are 100% against the move.
Who's roster spot you worried about?
Who's reduced playing time concerns you?
Are you worried that signing Holt would mean that either HURD, STANBACH or the rookie we draft won't make the roster?
This simply comes down to our team evaluating Tory Holt. How good is he? What's his value? And what can he do for our team?
All fair questions. Here is my view regarding answering your questions.
We don't HAVE to sign anybody in FA but we can add value to the roster and team by doing so if its the right talent, character and price. Don't know what Holt's price would be, I'm thinking we could do 2 years almost $5 million a season for his skill set and come out substantial winners on that deal.
Holt isn't as fast as he was 3-4 years ago but he's still plenty fast and a vertical threat much more so than RW. There is no reason he wouldn't get 60 catches, 900-1,100 yards and 7 TD's a season with a reasonable offense. His route running and hands are as good as it gets in the game. He's a team first, not looking for camera shots type of player that has been to the SB twice and won 1. He excells in offenses where there are many explosive components and another WR across from him of #1 WR pedigree.
None of our current WR's roster spots other than RW's concern me because none of them, including Crayton have earned playing time over a Torry Holt or RW. Hurd, Austin and Stanback are not WR's you can trust to start 16 games in a season, they are too injury prone and 3 years of history has shown this. Austin has never caught more than 13 balls in a season and has never started an NFL football game. We're relying on him to be the #2, catch 40-60 balls and start 14-16 games? In 10 seasons Torry Holt played 16 games every season accept for 1 where he did play 14 and still got over 1,300 yards. He is 1 year removed from the pro bowl and has been an all pro 7 times.
If we had Holt and RW those would be 2 of the startings WR spots and rightfully so. Crayton Austin and Hurd can fight for the 3rd, 4th and 5th spot. Stanback needs to be cut and possibly Hurd to if a rookie comes in and pushes him. None of these guys other than Austin worries me if they lose playing time. Crayton is what he is and he will not develop any further. If we don't get Holt Crayton remains a big factor for us because he is the 2nd most durable WR we have after RW who also has had durability issues in the past.
Getting Holt does not mean any of the other WR's mentioned would not make the roster. That would depend on whether we want to keep 6 WR's which I think 5 is more than enough. Stanback can get cut or go to practice squad if need be. He's eaten up a roster spot for years an we haven't received any return on him.
So I hope this tellsyou a bit more about what Holt can offer the WR corps and team as a whole and what my perception of the current WR corps is. It looks like approx. 7/10 Cowboy fans want Holt here if we can get a fair deal done.
