The poll that could tear The Clan asunder!

[AvengerRam]

At his peak, who was better...

Bruce v. Holt!

Let the debate begin!

[AvengerRam]

I've got to give a slight edge to Bruce, as he was a great WR even without a Pro Bowl QB, a 1,000 yard runner, and a HOF WR on the other side of the field.

Its very close, though. VERRRRY close indeed!

[RamsFanSam]

Without Bruce's influence, Holt would be a really good WR. With Bruce teaching him, Holt is a Great WR.

An extremely small edge to Bruce on this one.

[timsum1283]

one-sided so far

[Keenum]

Have to go with Bruce. The guy was great in the mid-90s on an underachieving team. In 1999, if we didn't have Hakim and Faulk to throw to a lot, Bruce would have had a lot more yards as well.

But you can't really go wrong with either WR being a franchise cornerstone.

[mikhal5569]

I voted for Torry. No one is a better deep threat than the Holt!

[LARAM]

Torry Holt.....He's been good from the start

[RamsNation]

RamsFanSam said exactly what I would have, but who is to say how good Holt would have been? I don't know.

[badmoforamfan]

Bruce.

He was spectacular all by himself. He was bad@$$ when Tony freakin' Banks was the quarterback. I think this may be a little unfair. Bruce was the only bright spot in the middle of a unspectacular era for Rams fans.

[maineram]

Has to be Bruce. When there was only one highlight reel through those 90's it was Bruce who carried he RAM torch.

After both careers are over we'll need another debate !!!

Maineram - :r

[r8rh8rmike]

This is indeed tough. Both guys have demonstrated great hands, have made the big catches and have the stats, but when it's do or die, one guy has consistently shown the inate ability to always get it done. Ike, there is no substitute.

[laram0]

Ike played alot of years on teams that were well below average and he shined. Ike has played on some outstanding teams (GSOT) and shined. I'm not taking anything away from Holt but I still have to go with...


IKE

:r

[HUbison]

I've got to say Holt.

Holt did not get here AFTER Bruce's prime; he got here DURING Bruce's prime.......and slightly (ever so slightly) out-performed Bruce during his prime. In fact, I wouldn't argue with the notion that they were a statistical dead-heat back then. What puts Holt over the top is that Holt had not yet come into his prime nor did he have 6-8 years of experience in the NFL. Look at the GSOT (99-02) years:

Bruce (age 27-30) - 64 games, 307 rec., 4817 yards, 15.7 ypc, 34 TDs
Holt (age 23-26) - 64 games, 306 rec., 5088 yards, 16.6 ypc, 23 TDs

[theodus69]

I woudl say , That IKE was on some crap teams and was the only threat at times the Rams had.
Also , Holt was able to perform right away with IkE taking the heat off of him being the star the league already knew.
So I have to go with IKE. I feel IKE is a little bit tougher too! IKE had a bit of H. Ellard in him.
IKE 's prime gave Holt the opportunity to prime early.

[snowbozo21]

AvengerRam I've got to give a slight edge to Bruce, as he was a great WR even without a Pro Bowl QB, a 1,000 yard runner, and a HOF WR on the other side of the field.

theodus69 I would say , That IKE was on some crap teams and was the only threat at times the Rams had.

Yea, I would have to agree with both those statements, Ike had Tony Banks, and Chris Miller, and Mark Rypien throwing to him while Torry has had Kurt Warner, and Marc Bulger, I would say big difference. Not to mention Isaac made that big catch in the SB plus he has second all time recieving yards in a season after Jerry Rice.