3/4/2014 -- 950 KJR 8am **How we lost Hutch**

[Subzero717]

I wont defend Ruskell in any way shape or form as his time as GM here. It is however obvious that he and Holmgren were toxic together. Holmgrens ego and Ruskells moronic moves were a match made for a shard storm.

In this case however, Ruskell from what I have heard in the past takes the brunt of this and from NFL circles it was the contract guy that screwed the pooch. The fact that Holmgren is still talking about it is kind of sad really. Get over it.

 

[hawkfan68]

I wont defend Ruskell in any way shape or form as his time as GM here. It is however obvious that he and Holmgren were toxic together. Holmgrens ego and Ruskells moronic moves were a match made for a shard storm.

In this case however, Ruskell from what I have heard in the past takes the brunt of this and from NFL circles it was the contract guy that screwed the pooch. The fact that Holmgren is still talking about it is kind of sad really. Get over it.

I agree it's been 8 years and it's the past. However, concluding that he and pointing the finger at Holmgren for bringing it up is off base. Maybe he brought it up because he's tired of getting asked about it. So he wanted to end that once and for all.

 

[Subzero717]

I wont defend Ruskell in any way shape or form as his time as GM here. It is however obvious that he and Holmgren were toxic together. Holmgrens ego and Ruskells moronic moves were a match made for a shard storm.

In this case however, Ruskell from what I have heard in the past takes the brunt of this and from NFL circles it was the contract guy that screwed the pooch. The fact that Holmgren is still talking about it is kind of sad really. Get over it.

I agree it's been 8 years and it's the past. However, concluding that he and pointing the finger at Holmgren for bringing it up is off base. Maybe he brought it up because he's tired of getting asked about it. So he wanted to end that once and for all.

Well, he isnt coaching anymore or doing pressers etc so I dont know where he feels like he is being harrased about it all the time. Also, the general feel and consensus at least amongst the fans is that it was Ruskell that screwed it up. As I also pointed out, it was when Ruskell resigned that it was brought up he (Ruskell) wasnt to blame and it was our cap guy at the time that completely blew it and that he undeservingly took the blame.

Again I couldnt stand Timmmmay but Holmy comes off as sour grapes and arrogance is ridiculous. "I could have thrown TR under the bus but didn't." You just did. Only 8 years after the fact and after youre both washed out and your irrelevant. It is just totally self serving.

I am also not a big fan of Hutch popping up this season amd refering to the team as "We."

 

[Barthawk]

It was brought up because the Transition tag was used twice yesterday.. It had not been used in UFA since the Hutch deal..

 

[HawkWow]

I will defend Ruskell on this deal forever. It was a brilliant way to pay market value for a player you feel was asking for too much. The poison pill should have never been allowed. How could Ruskell ever have seen this coming? To hear Holmgren say that the league told them to go away and not match, was eye-popping. They should have had our back. An absolute joke of a deal, and gives Ruskell quite a bit of an underserved black eye. He should have told Hutch though and not lied to him.

I like your style, Tical. I'm no Ruskell fan and you're probably not either. But as unpopular as truth can be..it will always be truth. One thing being conveniently omitted is that Hutch assured Ruskell he was OK with it all and gave every indication he would return once we matched. We were a SB team and Hutch had the luxury of (arguably) the best LT in history playing next to him. Why would Ruskell doubt him?

Holmgren is partially to blame in this. He was coach and understood the interaction between the players on the team better than Ruskell could have. Hutch's jealousy of another player (and his money) contributed to the pill. I know this to be fact and Holmy did as well. Why else would Holmy be so adamant about the tag? Why would he think Hutch may be lying to Ruskell and may consider taking his services elsewhere, after the assurance that wouldn't happen? It don't add up, Holmy.

I didn't like Ruskell. I liked Holmy. I'm glad they're both no longer.

 

[Anthony!]

I will defend Ruskell on this deal forever. It was a brilliant way to pay market value for a player you feel was asking for too much. The poison pill should have never been allowed. How could Ruskell ever have seen this coming? To hear Holmgren say that the league told them to go away and not match, was eye-popping. They should have had our back. An absolute joke of a deal, and gives Ruskell quite a bit of an underserved black eye. He should have told Hutch though and not lied to him.

You cannot defend a guy who lied to his head coach, that is not defensable.

 

[Anthony!]

I will defend Ruskell on this deal forever. It was a brilliant way to pay market value for a player you feel was asking for too much. The poison pill should have never been allowed. How could Ruskell ever have seen this coming? To hear Holmgren say that the league told them to go away and not match, was eye-popping. They should have had our back. An absolute joke of a deal, and gives Ruskell quite a bit of an underserved black eye. He should have told Hutch though and not lied to him.

I like your style, Tical. I'm no Ruskell fan and you're probably not either. But as unpopular as truth can be..it will always be truth. One thing being conveniently omitted is that Hutch assured Ruskell he was OK with it all and gave every indication he would return once we matched. We were a SB team and Hutch had the luxury of (arguably) the best LT in history playing next to him. Why would Ruskell doubt him?

Holmgren is partially to blame in this. He was coach and understood the interaction between the players on the team better than Ruskell could have. Hutch's jealousy of another player (and his money) contributed to the pill. I know this to be fact and Holmy did as well. Why else would Holmy be so adamant about the tag? Why would he think Hutch may be lying to Ruskell and may consider taking his services elsewhere, after the assurance that wouldn't happen? It don't add up, Holmy.

I didn't like Ruskell. I liked Holmy. I'm glad they're both no longer.

For one we do not know if Hutch said he was okay with it, we know Ruskell said he was okay with it, just like all we have was Ruskell saying it was the cap guys mistake. We have been told by several insiders that Ruskell and MH had agreed to franchise Hutch and than once MH left Ruskell changed it. This is all on Ruskell.

 

[Subzero717]

I will defend Ruskell on this deal forever. It was a brilliant way to pay market value for a player you feel was asking for too much. The poison pill should have never been allowed. How could Ruskell ever have seen this coming? To hear Holmgren say that the league told them to go away and not match, was eye-popping. They should have had our back. An absolute joke of a deal, and gives Ruskell quite a bit of an underserved black eye. He should have told Hutch though and not lied to him.

I like your style, Tical. I'm no Ruskell fan and you're probably not either. But as unpopular as truth can be..it will always be truth. One thing being conveniently omitted is that Hutch assured Ruskell he was OK with it all and gave every indication he would return once we matched. We were a SB team and Hutch had the luxury of (arguably) the best LT in history playing next to him. Why would Ruskell doubt him?

Holmgren is partially to blame in this. He was coach and understood the interaction between the players on the team better than Ruskell could have. Hutch's jealousy of another player (and his money) contributed to the pill. I know this to be fact and Holmy did as well. Why else would Holmy be so adamant about the tag? Why would he think Hutch may be lying to Ruskell and may consider taking his services elsewhere, after the assurance that wouldn't happen? It don't add up, Holmy.

I didn't like Ruskell. I liked Holmy. I'm glad they're both no longer.

For one we do not know if Hutch said he was okay with it, we know Ruskell said he was okay with it, just like all we have was Ruskell saying it was the cap guys mistake. We have been told by several insiders that Ruskell and MH had agreed to franchise Hutch and than once MH left Ruskell changed it. This is all on Ruskell.

When I mentioned it being the cap guy at the times fault, it wasnt from Rusk or anyone like that. It was from people around the league saying it, as he departed in what was unusual fashion. I dont know, but I dont think Ruskell was that popular that FO people or the likes around the league would spread that around if it wasnt true. If he was that popular, he wouldnt be a regional scout or whatever he is now.

 

[Anthony!]

I will defend Ruskell on this deal forever. It was a brilliant way to pay market value for a player you feel was asking for too much. The poison pill should have never been allowed. How could Ruskell ever have seen this coming? To hear Holmgren say that the league told them to go away and not match, was eye-popping. They should have had our back. An absolute joke of a deal, and gives Ruskell quite a bit of an underserved black eye. He should have told Hutch though and not lied to him.

I like your style, Tical. I'm no Ruskell fan and you're probably not either. But as unpopular as truth can be..it will always be truth. One thing being conveniently omitted is that Hutch assured Ruskell he was OK with it all and gave every indication he would return once we matched. We were a SB team and Hutch had the luxury of (arguably) the best LT in history playing next to him. Why would Ruskell doubt him?

Holmgren is partially to blame in this. He was coach and understood the interaction between the players on the team better than Ruskell could have. Hutch's jealousy of another player (and his money) contributed to the pill. I know this to be fact and Holmy did as well. Why else would Holmy be so adamant about the tag? Why would he think Hutch may be lying to Ruskell and may consider taking his services elsewhere, after the assurance that wouldn't happen? It don't add up, Holmy.

I didn't like Ruskell. I liked Holmy. I'm glad they're both no longer.

For one we do not know if Hutch said he was okay with it, we know Ruskell said he was okay with it, just like all we have was Ruskell saying it was the cap guys mistake. We have been told by several insiders that Ruskell and MH had agreed to franchise Hutch and than once MH left Ruskell changed it. This is all on Ruskell.

When I mentioned it being the cap guy at the times fault, it wasnt from Rusk or anyone like that. It was from people around the league saying it, as he departed in what was unusual fashion. I dont know, but I dont think Ruskell was that popular that FO people or the likes around the league would spread that around if it wasnt true. If he was that popular, he wouldnt be a regional scout or whatever he is now.

all true but the question is were did they get that info from? Also given the cap guy worked for Ruskell and he had agreed with MH to franchise Hutch it seems a best week and at most BS>

 

[Subzero717]

I will defend Ruskell on this deal forever. It was a brilliant way to pay market value for a player you feel was asking for too much. The poison pill should have never been allowed. How could Ruskell ever have seen this coming? To hear Holmgren say that the league told them to go away and not match, was eye-popping. They should have had our back. An absolute joke of a deal, and gives Ruskell quite a bit of an underserved black eye. He should have told Hutch though and not lied to him.

I like your style, Tical. I'm no Ruskell fan and you're probably not either. But as unpopular as truth can be..it will always be truth. One thing being conveniently omitted is that Hutch assured Ruskell he was OK with it all and gave every indication he would return once we matched. We were a SB team and Hutch had the luxury of (arguably) the best LT in history playing next to him. Why would Ruskell doubt him?

Holmgren is partially to blame in this. He was coach and understood the interaction between the players on the team better than Ruskell could have. Hutch's jealousy of another player (and his money) contributed to the pill. I know this to be fact and Holmy did as well. Why else would Holmy be so adamant about the tag? Why would he think Hutch may be lying to Ruskell and may consider taking his services elsewhere, after the assurance that wouldn't happen? It don't add up, Holmy.

I didn't like Ruskell. I liked Holmy. I'm glad they're both no longer.

For one we do not know if Hutch said he was okay with it, we know Ruskell said he was okay with it, just like all we have was Ruskell saying it was the cap guys mistake. We have been told by several insiders that Ruskell and MH had agreed to franchise Hutch and than once MH left Ruskell changed it. This is all on Ruskell.

When I mentioned it being the cap guy at the times fault, it wasnt from Rusk or anyone like that. It was from people around the league saying it, as he departed in what was unusual fashion. I dont know, but I dont think Ruskell was that popular that FO people or the likes around the league would spread that around if it wasnt true. If he was that popular, he wouldnt be a regional scout or whatever he is now.

all true but the question is were did they get that info from? Also given the cap guy worked for Ruskell and he had agreed with MH to franchise Hutch it seems a best week and at most BS>

Like I said I dont think Ruskell was well liked enough for guys to continue a BS story 3 years after the fact. On top of that the franchise at that point, I think we can all agree was a complete disaster and was when they brought Timmmmay in. I cant even remember who that cap guy was. Couldve been a hold over, couldve been working independent answering to Lieweke for all I know. Who knows? We were the Browns with a decent roster back then.

None the less Hutch was a big boy and obviously wanted to leave and it was 8 years ago. All those dipsticks are gone and thats what matters.

 

[HawKnPeppa]

I will defend Ruskell on this deal forever. It was a brilliant way to pay market value for a player you feel was asking for too much. The poison pill should have never been allowed. How could Ruskell ever have seen this coming? To hear Holmgren say that the league told them to go away and not match, was eye-popping. They should have had our back. An absolute joke of a deal, and gives Ruskell quite a bit of an underserved black eye. He should have told Hutch though and not lied to him.

I won't. He and Holmgren agreed to use the franchise tag, then Ruskell changed his mind without informing Holmgren. That's inexcusable, regardless of the thought process or unforeseen stipulations from the Vikings.

 

[pmedic920]

It was brought up because the Transition tag was used twice yesterday.. It had not been used in UFA since the Hutch deal..

Bingo.

 

[Our Man in Chicago]

Anyone have a podcast link to the show?

 

[gonzhawk]

No matter how you slice it, Holmgren saying "this was a slippery slope" was code for the beginning of the end of the Big Show in Seattle....which is what I always felt, and then watched unfold....so very sad indeed.

At then end of the day, all I have to say is that for all of MH faults, he still had more football knowledge in the foot he would like to put up Ruskell's @#$#@, then that overrated linebacker scout. Paul Allen and/or Tod Liewieke (sp) chose to back the wrong guy. IMO

 

[BadGuy711]

It was brought up because the Transition tag was used twice yesterday.. It had not been used in UFA since the Hutch deal..

After this Hutch went on twitter and made some smart alex comments about the transition tag. Mitch responded and then a few minutes later announced Holmy would give the details this morning. Hutch's twitter handle has Poison Pill in it. He clearly thinks it's funny. What a jerk.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

I will defend Ruskell on this deal forever. It was a brilliant way to pay market value for a player you feel was asking for too much. The poison pill should have never been allowed. How could Ruskell ever have seen this coming? To hear Holmgren say that the league told them to go away and not match, was eye-popping. They should have had our back. An absolute joke of a deal, and gives Ruskell quite a bit of an underserved black eye. He should have told Hutch though and not lied to him.

Do you like being a masochist?

 

[drdiags]

It was brought up because the Transition tag was used twice yesterday.. It had not been used in UFA since the Hutch deal..

Bingo.

I thought the Steelers used the transition tag on their LT (RT?) a couple of years ago. No one bit. I think it was the tackle who recently played with the Cardinals. Anyway, I remember folks talking about how they hoped someone did a poison pill on the Steelers.

 

[Zybot]

Holmgren did say that in Ruskell's defense this could have worked out better for the team and he did infer that there is no way they could have predicted this outcome. TR thought they could match if someone tried to sign Hutch. Holmgren's biggest complaint was that when the plan changed, he was not consulted.

Also it was cool to hear about how Walter Jones was willing to restructure after signing his contract to allow the team to almost match, but apparently NFL was not going to allow it.

 

[Barthawk]

It was brought up because the Transition tag was used twice yesterday.. It had not been used in UFA since the Hutch deal..

Bingo.

I thought the Steelers used the transition tag on their LT (RT?) a couple of years ago. No one bit. I think it was the tackle who recently played with the Cardinals. Anyway, I remember folks talking about how they hoped someone did a poison pill on the Steelers.

You are correct fine sir.. 2008 Max Starks was given the tag..

 

[chrispy]

Of course Ruskell couldn't have predicted the poison pill clause. So, if you want to look at this as an isolated incident, it's really just telling Holmgren and Hutch one thing, then doing something else that costs the player a pile of cash. The GM is responsible for the personnel. He can blame his cap guy, but that's like Exxon blaming the Valdez Captain. The buck stops at Ruskell. But it's not an isolated incident. We've seen a new thread every 6 months for 8 years about his drafts. He hit a few times, but there's a reason no one is left. If you accept that the GM's job is personnel, and he can't draft, and he can't manage his Free Agents, and he blames his cap guy for mistakes.... There's really not many conclusions you can end with.