Holt vs champ bailey

[general counsel]

As most of us know, when the rams selected holt with the 6th pick in the 1999 draft, they passed on champ bailey to do so. Hindsight being 20-20, was this the right move?

Holt is on his way to a HOF career and has certainly been a great ram. However, there is a strong argument to be made that the rams certainly havent lacked offensive weapons over the years and a stop HOF corner like bailey might have made more of an impact on our team over the last 9 years.

Lets discuss

ramming speed to all

general counsel

[HUbison]

I'd do the exact same thing again today. Bring Bailey into this defense and he is mortal.

[Dominating D]

We won a championship with Holt and should have won a couple of more....

Nuff said

[TekeRam]

I'd do the exact same thing again today. Bring Bailey into this defense and he is mortal.

Exactly. The Broncos have been able to keep consistent pressure on the QB for Champ Bailey as were the Redskins before them. Without any pressure from the defensive front, any QB can wait longer than a corner can cover. That was what we saw last year, where our front four couldn't pressure the QB and so we had to blitz to create that pressure, which opened up more holes in the secondary which decreases the time that a specific corner can cover. The problem was that the blitzes were known to be coming and so they were picked up and increased the amount of time QB's had to make the throws. I don't care who you got to play corner for us, with last years front four, the secondary would be blown apart.

As a side note, there were some instances where our secondary did suck it up on their own. The Green Bay all out blitz with no defenders up top for an easy score being one of them.

[general counsel]

Flip side to the argument. Holt amassed terrific stats based at least in part on the weapons around him. Would holt had been as great a player without warner, bulger, faulk, bruce and jackson around him? Put holt on a team without all the other weapons and i doubt he is anywhere near as effective.

I think bailey would have made more of an impact for us over the years. Would bailey look as good without a pass rush? Of course not. All the more reason that he would have been that much better than anything else we have had at the position with the exception of aeneas in 2001.

The last couple of years it may not have mattered, but i think bailey would have given us a better shot to win more titles, given the other weapons that we have had over that time span.

ramming speed to all

general counsel

[r8rh8rmike]

We won a championship with Holt and should have won a couple of more....

Nuff said

That's pretty much the way I see it. It's hard to argue with what happened in 1999. Holt was a huge part of the teams success and a lynchpin in the GSOT, plus we had a couple of very good corners in Lyght and McCleon, so marginally I just don't think Bailey would have made much of a difference.

[txramsfan]

I think the most underrated player in the whole GSOT era was Hakim. He allowed Bruce and or Holt to have single coverage while he sprinted down the field. Hakim had a monster SB against the Pats.

Bailey has been one of the best corners that have come out in a long time. Either one would have been ok in hindsight.

[Chris58]

Flip side to the argument. Holt amassed terrific stats based at least in part on the weapons around him. Would holt had been as great a player without warner, bulger, faulk, bruce and jackson around him? Put holt on a team without all the other weapons and i doubt he is anywhere near as effective.

ramming speed to all

general counsel

Couldn't the same be said for Moss? What did he do with the Raiders? Surrounded by talent in NE he had a record breaking year.

[HUbison]

Would holt had been as great a player without warner, bulger, faulk, bruce and jackson around him?

Would they have been as great without Holt?

It's hard to argue with what happened in 1999.

Rather, I'd say it's easy not to argue with what happened in 1999. In the NFL, there's no such thing as "nuff said".

[r8rh8rmike]

Rather, I'd say it's easy not to argue with what happened in 1999. In the NFL, there's no such thing as "nuff said".

Based on the number of posts since "nuff said", you could also say there's no such thing on a message board either.

[HUbison]

Based on the number of posts since "nuff said", you could also say there's no such thing on a message board either.

Exactly right. I always chuckle a little whenever I read "nuff said". It's never "nuff said". No single point from no single poster will ever be so definitive and conclusive to elicit a true "nuff said". The Allmighty himself could post here and end it with "nuff said", but the discussion would continue.

There's never a legitimate use for "nuff said".

---wait for it---


Nuff said.

[Chris58]

There's never a legitimate use for "nuff said".

But it feels sooooooo goooooood when you can say with such conviction.

[r8rh8rmike]

Exactly right. I always chuckle a little whenever I read "nuff said". It's never "nuff said". No single point from no single poster will ever be so definitive and conclusive to elicit a true "nuff said". The Allmighty himself could post here and end it with "nuff said", but the discussion would continue.

There's never a legitimate use for "nuff said".

---wait for it---


Nuff said.

I never use the term "nuff said", but in fairness to Dominating D, I must admit I'm guilty of saying "end of story" and "period", which is pretty much the same thing, but only to emphasize a point.

But it feels sooooooo goooooood when you can say with such conviction.

Yes, yes it does Chris!

Sorry we're derailing your thread GC.

[rammiser]

I asked myself would we have won the Superbowl if Holt wasnt drafted? We already had a good defense that year I believe they were ranked 6th overall. So adding Champ to that D would not have been a major difference because they were already good. I mean Holt only caught 52 passes for 788 yds but was a very important part of the offense that year. Just not sure we could have plugged any wr into the offense and still been the GSOT without Holt.

[Mooselini]

That's pretty much the way I see it. It's hard to argue with what happened in 1999. Holt was a huge part of the teams success and a lynchpin in the GSOT, plus we had a couple of very good corners in Lyght and McCleon, so marginally I just don't think Bailey would have made much of a difference.

Exaclty. With Holt we have won a championship and had a few play off runs. I'm quite happy with the pick.