**Better Fantasy #'s from here on out - SS or Holt??**

[ampant]

Past performance is not a guarantee of future success.

Past performance is by no means a guarantee, but it is one of the most important factors when trying to predict future success, barring mitigating circumstances like age or injury. Who did you take with your 1st pick in the draft? I am betting it wasn't a guy with a history of crappy performance.

mod edit

[Verdun Barbarians]

I like Holt's consistency. He rarely has "off" games. Smith is more of a boom or bust.

[LS2throwed]

Holt all the way...as good as it gets with being a fundamentally good WR...ive been trying relentlessly to get him on my team, owner wont budge

[matmat]

Who did you take with your 1st pick in the draft? I am betting it wasn't a guy with a history of crappy performance.

mod edit

no, of course not.
Perhaps my direct quotation of a stock warning didn't really illustrate my point.
I think that using past stats for two elite receivers (and they are elite receivers) can be somewhat deceiving. Holt has been in the league longer and has been in a system that promotes receiver scoring (Green, Warner in his prime and now bulger). Carolina has developed its passing game fairly recently (unless you count chris weinke or rodney peete). Smith had a freak injury a year or two back (getting your leg broken by someone falling on it is not a the effect of being injury-prone), holt has not had that misfortune.

The more pertinent issues in this decision are the current hamstring problems that smith is having etc.

i think it is a lot closer than people responding to this post seem to think. I could very well be wrong. Perhaps a gander at the schedule would be a good way to gauge these two receivers' performance this year.

[Kensat30]

St. Louis seems off this year, yet Holt is still scoring the touchdowns. I think he is on pace for his best year yet in touchdowns, but he is finding the catches and yardage tougher to come by than usual.

Steve Smith looks great even running at 80-90%. Keyshawn Johnson has stolen some of his thunder this year, but I have a hard time seeing that continue.

I don't think you go wrong with either of these guys this year, but if I was forced to choose I would go with Smith. Holt has proven that he can excel with a variety of different coaches/systems/QBs. But, with Bulger's tendency to miss games, his new coach, AND the new system all at the same time, I don't wanna put Holt to the test if something should go wrong. I really don't like the way St. Louis is gonna look like if Bulger goes down.

Steve Smith on the other hand looks great even with the injury concern. Delhomme is like night and day without Smith in the lineup. Not only that, but Smith is making other players around him look better than they are. The way Keyshawn is playing is incredible (Key on pace for 10+ TDs and performing as solidly as Smith himself). If anything, I expect him Smith pick up the pace as he further distances himself from the injury and defenses have to respect a Carolina offense that is not solely based around Smith as last year. The targets and production can only go down from 2005, but I still think the man is a very solid 1400/10 type WR. I think Smith can average close to 100 yards a game from here on out with a TD or two every other game or so...

[ampant]

Perhaps my direct quotation of a stock warning didn't really illustrate my point.

It added nothing to the conversation. Stocks are very different than football players. Also, you realize that there is another saying which is often applied to hiring philosophy "Past performance is the best predictor of future success."

While I agree with you that history isn't everything, it is certainly still one of the largest factors in predicting future performance. Teams don't draft guys that didn't do well in college. Teams don't look for players who are at the bottom of the league in perfromance for their position. You can't look at a guy who is tall and fast and know that he will even be an average NFL player. The only way of identifying good players is from their performance.

I think that using past stats for two elite receivers (and they are elite receivers) can be somewhat deceiving. Holt has been in the league longer and has been in a system that promotes receiver scoring (Green, Warner in his prime and now bulger).

Yes, Holt has been in the league longer. And even though a longer carrer affords more opportunity for mishap, he has been extremely consistent and reliable.

As far as your "System" argument . . . what Football team doesn't promote WR scoring? Steve Smith inherited the #1 WR slot due to Mush leaving . . . remember that Mush was the top scoring WR the year before he left. Do you think it is coincidence that Smith became the #1 fantasy WR when he slid into that slot? Jake Delhomme has been favoring the WR1 position ever since he has been with the Panthers. Last year Smith had 4 times the # of receptions as Colbert, the #2WR. If anything, having a legitimate WR2 in Keyshawn could lower Smith's status if Delhomme doesn't feel like he has to force it to Smith all the time.

Carolina has developed its passing game fairly recently (unless you count chris weinke or rodney peete).

This is Delhomme's 4th year with the club. They went to the superbowl in 1st season three and a half years ago.

Smith had a freak injury a year or two back (getting your leg broken by someone falling on it is not a the effect of being injury-prone), holt has not had that misfortune.

Honestly, I don't follow his injury history, but aside from his 2004 broken-leg season, he also missed 5 starts in 2003, 3 in 2002, and 15 in 2001 (though I don't know if he was a starter in 2001). He also has missed 2 games already this year with his hammy. And hammy injuries tend to linger.

The more pertinent issues in this decision are the current hamstring problems that smith is having etc.

I agree that this is another of many reasons why Holt will have netter numbers.

i think it is a lot closer than people responding to this post seem to think. I could very well be wrong. Perhaps a gander at the schedule would be a good way to gauge these two receivers' performance this year.

I don't. . . While I agree with you that history isn't everything, it is certainly still one of the largest factors in predicting future performance. Teams don't draft guys that didn't do well in college. Teams don't look for players who are at the bottom of the league in perfromance for their position.

Holt's extremely high and consistent numbers span different coaches, quarterbacks, systems, and rosters. One his best years was when the Rams had the 2nd-ranked defense in the league (2000), and were loaded offensively. He had over 1600 yards despite playing with guys like Bruce and Faulk, and despite playing with a lead all season long. These numbers are a testament to his natural ability and work ethic (not to mention he is an unselfish, classy player). They also speak to the fact that the guy is in great physical shape, takes care of his body, and not injury prone. As long and hard as football season can be, there aren't many WRs close to his caliber that average over 15 starts/year

I could very well be wrong. Perhaps a gander at the schedule would be a good way to gauge these two receivers' performance this year.

OK. I have looked at each player's upcoming schedule, and added up each opponent's total Fantasy Points Allowed to WRs (so far this year) and divided it by the # of games (not including week 17).

The remaining teams on Holt's schedule are giving up an average of 18.73 points/game to fantasy WRs. Steve Smith's opponents are giving up an average of 19.7/game. Not much of a difference.

[Crippler]

I'm definately going with Holt. Smith is a little riskier but could have a little higher upside as well. I'd rather take the more consistant Holt though.

[mrblitz]

I think SS is the guy. He is so good that his team lost the only 2 games he's missed.

[tHe.pRoFessionaL]

Guys, I think it is safe to say that having either of these guys on your team should make for a good receiving core no matter the second receiver . But the good news is that I just made a trade to get Holt, so that makes my starters Steve Smith AND Torry Holt!!! I guess you could say I am happy.

[ampant]

Guys, I think it is safe to say that having either of these guys on your team should make for a good receiving core no matter the second receiver . But the good news is that I just made a trade to get Holt, so that makes my starters Steve Smith AND Torry Holt!!! I guess you could say I am happy.

LOL. Good job dude. That's gonna feel great setting your lineup every week.