jranieli Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/giants/20...-take-your.html March 5, 2009 Boldin, Edwards, Holt ... Take your pick The Giants have sent word that they’re out of the Terrell Owens chase, but they’ve still got a Plaxico-sized hole at receiver. Torry Holt may soon be available and there are wild, internet- and radio-fueled rumors that link the Giants to Anquan Boldin and Braylon Edwards. At the moment, there’s nothing to substantiate any of those rumors (especially the ones that include Mathias Kiwanuka as a part of any deal). But there’s no doubt that each of those three receivers represents a tempting target. So if you were the GM — and had determined you needed to beef up the Giants’ receiving corps in the absence of Burress — which one of the Big (Apparently Available) Three would you choose? Here is a breakdown of the choices and the likely prices. As someone once said, “You make the call”: • Torry Holt (6-0, 190, Age: 33 in June: ): The veteran receiver has reportedly asked for his release from the Rams, which he’ll likely get before he’s due a roster bonus of $1.25 million on March 17. He caught 64 passes for 793 yards last year, which looks good until you notice it ended a string of eight straight years with at least 80 catches and 1,100 yards. He hasn’t been that unproductive since he was a rookie in 1999. The price: It’s not inconceivable a trade for a low draft pick could be worked out with the Giants’ old buddy, Steve Spagnuolo, especially if it‘s true the Rams are going to release him anyway. If not, Holt would cost nothing but money once he is cut. And it’s hard to imagine him demanding (or, at least, realistically expecting) anything close to the $6.65 million he is currently scheduled to make this year. The market for aging, declining receivers won’t support that price, I don’t think. • Anquan Boldin (6-1, 217, Age: 28 ): In the wake of a Super Bowl season, Boldin is in the midst of a soap opera in Arizona. He seems to want out, but what he really wants is a contract like the $10 million-per-year deal the Cards gave Larry Fitzgerald. Maybe he deserves it after catching more than 80 passes for more than 1,000 yards in four of his first six NFL seasons. Then again, he’s made it through 16 games only twice in his career. The price: Agent Drew Rosenhaus has already said the price in trade is likely to be equal to the four-pick haul of the Roy Williams deal (a first, third, sixth and seventh pick) — though I bet it’ll be more than that. Word is the Cardinals want picks, not players, but there certainly are a lot of unsubstantiated rumors about them being intrigued by one or two of the Giants’ defensive ends. Also remember, once you trade for him, you’ve got to pay him. And yes, he wants a raise from the $2.75 million he‘s making this year to something closer to $10 million per year. • Braylon Edwards (6-3, 215, Age: 26): The hottest rumor on the grapevine right now is that Edwards is available (even my pal Cimini says so). And the radio/internet chatter is aflutter (is that a word?) over a presumed Edwards-for-Kiwanuka swap. I’ll never say never (again), but at the moment that appears to be nothing more than speculation and fantasy football. My Giants sources say, unequivocally, Kiwi is not on the block. Meanwhile, Edwards — who’ll make $4.55 million in this, the last year of his contract — is still in the Browns’ long-term plans, from what I’ve heard. Then again, you never now what Eric Mangini has up his sleeve. The price: The Browns got a second and a fifth for TE Kellen Winslow, according to reports, so the price for Edwards will be higher than that. I’m guessing it’ll be higher than the Roy Williams trade, too. And remember, much like with Boldin, then you’ve got to pay him. And yes, expect to pay him $10 million per year. His numbers weren’t great last season (55 catches, 873 yards, three touchdowns), but the Browns had quarterback issues and he did average 15.9 yards per catch. Plus, he was unstoppable against the Giants so they got a very up-close look at how good he can be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ppodlesny Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 there best bet at this point is Torry Holt...the other two would cost way too much, and WR is not an area where you should spending a lot of money. Again, my opinion only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 there best bet at this point is Torry Holt...the other two would cost way too much, and WR is not an area where you should spending a lot of money. Again, my opinion only. I didnt realize Torry was only 33. I thought he was like 38. I agree, he would be a good fit. Especially when we already have a great run game and D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plax 4 Prez Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 there best bet at this point is Torry Holt...the other two would cost way too much, and WR is not an area where you should spending a lot of money. Again, my opinion only. Does anyone know if he is speedy at all? I already know he has good hands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treehugger Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Torry would work for a year or two. Not sure he's much of an upgrade over Hixon though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plax 4 Prez Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Torry would work for a year or two. Not sure he's much of an upgrade over Hixon though. Better hands, lol. Plus Torry is pretty short. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allstarjim Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 But one thing with Torry Holt is that he is proven, unlike Hixon. Torry can play. I would have no reservations about bringing Torry Holt in on a 2 year deal. I would prefer Braylon, but not at the same trade demands that Vacchiono thinks will be necessary. If really pressed, I would give up the Giants 1st and 4th rounders (and as always, Sinorice Moss), and that's it. If we sign Holt, which might be the biggest value out on the open market for receivers, we would still need to draft one of the top receivers in this draft though. Whoever Reese and Coughlin likes from Britt, Nicks, Heyward-Bey, Murphy, etc. And the reason being is that it is doubtful with Holt's numbers declining that he will still command the attention he did earlier in his career, I just don't see it. One thing that's working against the Giants signing Holt at this point is that now the cap is a bigger issue than it was after free agency, with the Giants committing big money already to Boley, Bernard, Canty, and Brown. If they can work out Eli's extension sooner rather than later, perhaps they can free up some cap space. But they still have to sign their draft picks, also. Reading that piece, I have to wonder if Vacchiano is a reader of SportsWrath. If he's not, he should be, because this is where the best Giants discussions take place on the internet. Bottom line, though, is that Holt would be an improvement, but he still wouldn't fill the void left by Plaxico, thus leaving the Giants still at the point where they need to try and do that through the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Money Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 I wonder about Holt's knee and his duability moving forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treehugger Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Better hands, lol. Plus Torry is pretty short. I think Hixon is coming up while Holt is fading away though. I'm sure Torry's dropped a sure TD or two in his time too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lubeck Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 I think Hixon is coming up while Holt is fading away though. I'm sure Torry's dropped a sure TD or two in his time too. But he wasn't a Giant when he did it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allstarjim Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 I think Hixon is coming up while Holt is fading away though. I'm sure Torry's dropped a sure TD or two in his time too. I just have serious doubts that Hixon will ever be the level of receiver of Torry Holt even right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Money Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 If you extrapoloate Hixon's '08 numbers over an entire season, he outperformed Torry Holt last year by a substantial margin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plax 4 Prez Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 But he wasn't a Giant when he did it lol, do u remember the Rams only TD versus us in week 2 or 3? I was so upset that he caught that over the shoulder catch and held on to it. He was covered pretty good too. He's had some killer games against us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plax 4 Prez Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 If you extrapoloate Hixon's '08 numbers over an entire season, he outperformed Torry Holt last year by a substantial margin. Yeah, but look at the Rams offensive line. The QB never had the oppertunity to get the ball to him, and Marc Bulger was hurt most the season if I can remember correctly. Thier o-line had two solid games that year that I could remember. Dallas and Washington. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boohyah Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 If you extrapoloate Hixon's '08 numbers over an entire season, he outperformed Torry Holt last year by a substantial margin. Well, if you're going to use big words like that, then the idea would be you do the math to back yourself up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Well, if you're going to use big words like that, then the idea would be you do the math to back yourself up! Big words is right. I thought extrapolate is what I always had at Thanksgiving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treehugger Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Yeah, you can't judge much on the Rams' numbers last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allstarjim Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 If you extrapoloate Hixon's '08 numbers over an entire season, he outperformed Torry Holt last year by a substantial margin. Extrapolation can be tricky if using as a predictor. Based on what you SAW out of Hixon, do you think he can be a #1 or #2 quality WR NEXT SEASON, not 2 or 3 years down the road? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ppodlesny Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 If you extrapoloate Hixon's '08 numbers over an entire season, he outperformed Torry Holt last year by a substantial margin. that's not saying much since Hixon played on a 12 - 4 team and Holt played on a 4 - 12 team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nas Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 I didnt realize Torry was only 33. I thought he was like 38. I agree, he would be a good fit. Especially when we already have a great run game and D. Torry would be an upgrade at #2 (with all love and respect to Amani). But We need a stud WR (a rookie taken in the 2nd round might just do the trick). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ppodlesny Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Torry would be an upgrade at #2 (with all love and respect to Amani). But We need a stud WR (a rookie taken in the 2nd round might just do the trick). Hmm holt as a #2 would not be a bad idea, move Hixon to #1, smith still a possesion receiver, might work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lubeck Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Hmm holt as a #2 would not be a bad idea, move Hixon to #1, smith still a possesion receiver, might work Hixon wouldn't be #1 over Holt. And besides with Gilfuck still calling plays there is no such thing as a #1 receiver. Some plays Smith can be out there by himself and a bunch of TEs/RBs. Sometimes Hixon could be out there by himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ppodlesny Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Hixon wouldn't be #1 over Holt. And besides with Gilfuck still calling plays there is no such thing as a #1 receiver. Some plays Smith can be out there by himself and a bunch of TEs/RBs. Sometimes Hixon could be out there by himself. LOL! Holt can be either #1 or #2, its the patterns in the play that are significant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGBLUE01 Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Hmm holt as a #2 would not be a bad idea, move Hixon to #1, smith still a possesion receiver, might work No one think S Smith could be a good #1? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allstarjim Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 No one think S Smith could be a good #1? Nope, he's a one dimensional receiver. Very good at what he does, but he will never be the kind of talent a real #1 is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.PNG.4041f760333c81302efb39476c5b3508.PNG)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now