(IMO) Seeing as BE was a much more potent threat than SH, I'm inclined to think that SH is a nice extra distraction for opposing Ds , does that make our O better, it has too even if its not him with the catches. SH is a quality clutch WR, and in the NFL right now, there aren't too many of them. This team needs to at least try and keep Holmes, but not at the expense of BE and Cro.
Keller's production because fell off because of opponent film study more than because of Holmes if you ask me. Did that make our offense worse? Not really. Holmes is coming off like a bit of a diva this off-season, and it's clear he's all about the paycheck at the moment. But on the field the guy's never been an issue so far. So that didn't make our offense worse either. Then there's Denver, Cleveland, Detroit, and Houston. He was two horrible drops away from adding Green Bay and Miami to that list. Does he make our offense worse? Who gives a shit - he makes our record better.
in addition to teams game planning for Keller, he also dropped a dick ton of passes..when given the opportunity midseason. Holmes brings something all of our other players don't. 'Clutch' I never heard of clutch being bad for an offense.
This question got me thinking, do you think Revis makes our defense worse? Holmes changes our style of offense, that's for sure. I would absolutely love to have him back, but I was just as happy with Braylon, Cotch, and Keller getting more looks. At first I was paranoid about losing Holmes now I don't care too much as long as we keep Braylon. Holmes may have the talent edge, but Braylon has the size and matchup edge and that is something that doesn't diminish.
Oh yeah, definitely. Revis is holding down the development of the other CBs. He makes them look bad. They could spread their wings and fly if he left. /sarcasm
Ultimately him being on the field makes the offense better. I guess you can argue that certain players or elements of the offense may decline (slightly) due to his presence but the same would hold true for any player being added to a roster after 4 games. Factoring in a monster contract and how that affects the team is a whole 'nother beast entirely.
I made a thread about not resigning Holmes, and was bashed for the thought of it. Since then, he has kept running his mouth, and is letting the world know he's not playing for a reduced contract. With the other weapons we have, it doesn't make sense to pay big money to two guys. Mark did fine without Holmes in the first 4 games. Holmes doesn't make us worse, but I truely believe the offense would not miss him one bit if Kerley ends up being half decent. I wouldn't mind bringing him back for the simple fact that if we don't, and get even one injury, it sets us back big. Bring him and Braylon back for $15 Million between the two of them, and no more. Neither guy is going to produce more than 1000 yards- it's just not worth it to the Jets. We run a lot, and pass to TE's and backs more than most teams-- we don't need to overpay for two Bigtime WR.
Holmes is an elite talent at wideout, in no way does having him around make us worse. Just think back to how many game changing/winning catches he made in the 4th or over time last year. The guy made things happen for a so-so offense last season. Do I think we can get by without him? Yes. Improved play from Mark and Keller, more routes for Edwards and Cotchery and will still have a decent passing attack. If one of the rookies steps up all the better.
That is the only point I really look at in the whole equation. Sooner or later we will have a cap and signing two number 1 receivers is a long shot for any team. It's even crazier for our defensive minded, ground & pound team to have that much money tied up in receivers.
im not saying that santonio makes our team worse, but i am a believer in addition by subtraction. sometimes less options for the qb makes his decision process more efficent and faster. for a qb that is still comming into his own especially.
The only way to create fewer opportunities for the QB would be to run sets with more blockers and fewer receivers on every single down. He can't throw to someone sitting on the sideline. Personally, I'd rather have a QB who knows he can utilize everyone currently on the field than limit his reliable options.
Now see, that's an entirely different argument, and a valid one. Debating his worth to the team in terms of relative finances is a much more interesting prospect. However, that's entirely different than simply saying we'd be better offensively without him, which is what a certain poster directly stated. It's interesting to see how attitudes have changed since the point when we first started asking "Edwards or Holmes?" I was in a very outweighed minority who chose Edwards as the one who should be signed if we could only retain one. Now, it seems like it's a nearly unanimous opinion, with finances and attitude seeming the obvious motivating factors. I still think having and utilizing both of them makes us a better team, and without Holmes we lose an explosive element to our offense. However, Tanny will have those tough decisions to make as to how to wisely utilize our finances. Again, however, that's not what the poll is about. It's about a simple question with all of those financial and attitude problems removed. Seems pretty clear cut to almost everyone here.
Yeah ... Great theory. Holmes is just KILLING this offense ... he's just too damn good! Maybe we can cut him and get Jo Jo Townsell, or Alex Van Dyke to come out of retirement :smile:
fftopic: I know, but when Revis wasn't playing, I seem to remember our D was pretty damn good, Cro certainly played better. Love to know the stats on this.
