BOLDIN/FITZGERALD vs HOLT/BRUCE

[Blackout]

which is the best WR tandem Kurt Warner has taken to the Superbowl???

i say the Rams

[MagicBizkit87]

I gotta say Fitz, and Boldin.

[124]

Anquan Boldin, Larry Fitzgerald, Steve Breaston & Jeremy Urban

vs

Issac Bruce, Tory Holt, Az-Zahir Hakim & Ricky Prohel.

Pretty close.

[Blackout]

im just going by the top 2

but either way the Rams win, because Az and Phroehl were great. and that Faulk guy w/ his 1,000 receiving yards in 99

[Otter]

Very close. I voted for Holt and Bruce because they won a Super Bowl together. Might change vote if Cards win this Sunday.

[ECURB]

Very close. I voted for Holt and Bruce because they won a Super Bowl together. Might change vote if Cards win this Sunday.

Fitz Boldin win... no ??? about it... Warner is having a crazy year alomst a decade later in his career with them... imagine him in his "prime" with them... this is his later years and he is tearing it up with them..

[RutgersJetFan]

Bruce has really become forgotten as time's passed, most forget that many dubbed him as the best WR in the game for a few years, including Parcells himself.

That being said, I've got to give it to Fitz and Boldin, by a considerably large margin actually. Fitzgerald is just an alien, and is better than both Bruce and Holt were at their best, which is saying a lot. And Boldin's better than Holt was at that period in time. If you're comparing 1's to 1's and 2's to 2's, it's the Cards, definitely.

[New York Mick]

Out of just those two Fitz/Bold but overall the Rams, Faulk was a huge factor.

[BroadwayJoe12]

As of now I'm going with Bruce and Holt, but I will reserve the right to change my opinion in a few years. I think this is just the case of what have you done for me lately.

Fitzy is a beast, no question about it, however so were both Holt and Bruce. Holt had 8 straight 1100+ yard seasons in a row, whereas Bruce had over 1100 yards every time he completed a full season, 8 times.

These guys had the absolute most reliable hands, blazing speed and ran the best routes by anyone not named jerry rice. The Rams used to run double and tripple moves almost every play, and it could only be holt and bruce against 5 DBs and they would still get open.

I think Fitzy and Boldin are absolutely studly in their own right, but are just different players. I will admit fitzy is having the best playoff performance of a WR in recent memory (best stat wise ever), but he is also the focal point of the offense, with no marshal faulk to take away touches.

I think it's very close, but i am going with Bruce and Holt for now.

[Blackout]

Bruce and Holt are already HOF when they retire. Bruce had that GREAT 1995 season.

[jason423]

Fitzgerald is on a different planet right now. Bruce and Holt were both great but the only other player I can think of that makes some of those Fitzgerald catches is Randy Moss. If we are just talking about two guys that can get open down the field Id give the nod to Bruce and Holt, but I think Fitzgerald is so awesome he tips the scales in the Cards favor.

[BroadwayJoe12]

Fitzgerald is on a different planet right now. Bruce and Holt were both great but the only other player I can think of that makes some of those Fitzgerald catches is Randy Moss. If we are just talking about two guys that can get open down the field Id give the nod to Bruce and Holt, but I think Fitzgerald is so awesome he tips the scales in the Cards favor.

That's fitzy's game though. He doesn't have elite speed to constantly get downfield separation, so he has to use his strength, size and leaping ability. I'm not putting him down in anyway, but because he makes circus catches doesn't make him a better receiver than Bruce or Holt.

Fitzy is definitely on pace to have as good of, if not better career than Bruce and Holt, but as of right now I still have to say Bruce and Holt were better.

[The Troll]

Fitzgerald is the most dominant of all of them, so I went with the Cardinals duo.

[Jetlag]

I went with the Cardinals. Bruce/Holt were greatly aided by playing on turf for all those years. When they played on grass there was a noticeable difference. Fitz/Boldin just ball wherever they're at.

[The Troll]

[quote name='Blackout

[serphnx]

I had to go with Fitz/Boldin. I'm not even sure it's really that close, I'm probably giving Holt/Bruce far more respect than they deserve. The two of them didn't really seem to be nearly as good without Warner and Faulk.

[BroadwayJoe12]

I had to go with Fitz/Boldin. I'm not even sure it's really that close, I'm probably giving Holt/Bruce far more respect than they deserve. The two of them didn't really seem to be nearly as good without Warner and Faulk.

I have to 100% disagree with you about Holt & Bruce not being as good without Warner and Faulk. Warner was only the main QB for St Louis for 3 years.

Warner - Games Started

1999 - 16

2000 - 11

2001 - 16

2002 - 7

2003 - 2

Both Holt and Bruce had their best seasons when Warner wasn't even there or missed a significant amount of games. Holt had 4 consecutive 1100+ seasons where he totaled 36 tds. This doesn't count 2003 where Warner started only 2 games and he had his best statistical season; 117 catches, 1696 yards and 12 tds.

As for Bruce, he had his best statistical year 4 years or so before warner was even on the team. 119 receptions, 1781 yards and 13 tds. He had just as many 1000+ yard seasons without Warner as he did with; two of the years when he was 32 and 34.

As for that old tale of them being far worse off the turf, well I don't buy that either. I took a sample size of their stats from 1999-2001, the years that Warner was the main guy and looked at the numbers home and away.

Holt

Home - 110 receptions, 2024 yards and 9 tds

Away - 105 receptions, 1760 yards and 10 tds

Bruce

Home - 111 receptions, 1874 yards and 15 tds

Away - 117 receptions, 1874 yards and 12 tds

There numbers do not show any type of letoff home vs. away. Bruce even had, which i double checked becuase i found very odd, the same amount of yards home and away over that three years span (that also includes 1 missed away game for bruce).

I just wanted to add these numbers becuase i figure a lot of people don't necessarily remember how good these two were. It is just one of those ''what have you done for me lately'' scenarios. It's ashame really, because in 10 years from now we'll be talking about a new pair of receivers and forgetting about Boldin and Fitzy.

[Blackout]

holt and bruce = HOF

[Ghost]

This is an obvious one.

[billybroome]

Fitzgerald and Boldin without question.

[Blackout]

i'm shocked

to me, Holt and Bruce. they kept that team alive for a few years when Warner and Faulk peaked in 2002.

bruce is #2 all time in yards

[Blackout]

kurt warner's the man

[billybroome]

i'm shocked

to me, Holt and Bruce. they kept that team alive for a few years when Warner and Faulk peaked in 2002.

If Warner peaked in 2002, what the hell is he doing in the Superbowl again in 2009? I say all careers have peaks and valleys. Kurt has just reached another summit with Anquan Boldin and Larry Fitzgerald.

[Blackout]

for the R ams, that's the year they peaked

Warner resurrected himself in NY and then AZ

[billybroome]

[quote name='Blackout

[villain_the_foe]

which is the best WR tandem Kurt Warner has taken to the Superbowl???

i say the Rams

I would love to say Fitz and Boldin...but bottomline, Kurt has been to the chip with Holt/Issac twice and won a title. Fitz and Boldin havent even played in the big dance yet. I think this thread would have been a great one for after the superbowl if the Cards would have one it.

Remember, The titans were down 16 to 0 or something close to that during that super bowl. Eddie George and "Air" McNair ties the game up in the 4th Qtr with two mins left. The very first play from Kurt Warner in the 2min warning is a 70YD pass to Issac Bruce for a TD....which ends up cementing their SB win.

Also, Kurt threw for like almost 500 yards in that game, which I believe is a record still standing today.

Holt and Issac was a problem for the league in the late 90's heading into 2000 (not to forget Marshall Faulk as well. That team was and special team overall).

Fitz and Boldin havent carried out such mayhem as of yet. They got time though. I hope the Tandem can say together and not let something like salary break up that team. We need different teams like this to impact the league.

[Blackout]

solid points

[PFSIKH]

I went with Fitzgerald and Boldin.

Not a knock on Holt and Bruce who were great, but Boldin and Fitzgerald are more physically dominating then Bruce/Holt.

[The Troll]

Give the Cardinals Marshall Faulk in his prime and see what kind of "mayhem they dish out".

[Sperm Edwards]

Depends on the type of team you've got. If you have a RB like Faulk, then you very well could rather have guys who stretch the field more. Absent a solid running attack, I'd probably take the money possession guys.

Though to be fair, I can't see anyone wishing they had the other 2 WR's no matter which was their current tandem.

It's also a little different because Bruce's best year(s) were before Holt came into his own. Fitz & Boldin have developed pretty-much at the same time.