Holmgren

[Year of The Hawk]

Not a big fan myself. I respect him but he is one of those guys that I only liked because he was on our team. He did not seam to have much passion IMHO. I rooted for the Seahawks despite Holmy. Yes he got us closer to the prize than ever before but he was very unexciting. Moves he made never made sense to me. Some of that was probably Ruskell screwing things up. Despite his boring ways he did get us to our first bowl. IMHO his lack of excitement and motivation is what lost us our first Super Bowl. We had some bad calls but it seems the team just fell apart after that. They let the bad calls get to them and could not put it past them. This would not happen (and did not) with this current team.
Now the current regime is the total opposite of the past. And I love it.

Go Hawks.

 

[timmat]

Holmgren changed the mindset of this franchise. He had a ton to do with not only a very successful period in team history, but also raising the bar for all the regimes to come.

 

[LTH]

Will always cherish his contributions to my team.

It's so easy to forget where this franchise was before he came here. This was the Siberia of the NFL. Holmgren, by himself, gave this franchise legitimacy. At the time he arrived, this was a club that had to be torn down and rebuilt. Much in the same way Pete/John had to undo the foul state that Ruskell had left the club in.

The reality was, Seattle had kind of moved on from Holmgren after he left. And for what it's worth, I think that was a smart move. Holmgren wasn't as talented of an administrator/talent evaluator as he was a coach and teacher. But the genesis for this organization as it stands today began the day Holmgren arrived and the culling of talent in the front office from Green Bay began.

So many of the key organizational talents here now have strong/direct ties with Holmgren's tenure here. Green Bay and Seattle both have shared/swapped talent in that regard since 1999. Ted Thompson played key roles in Seattle before becoming GM in Green Bay. Schneider blossomed under Thompson and obviously has had a fantastic run here.

There is so much similarity in how this organization is run between the two franchises and that connection doesn't happen if Holmgren doesn't bring that here. Mike left a lasting impact that can still be seen today. The franchise most definitely turned a distinct direction from an organization standpoint upon his arrival here.

I agree... Holmgren used to be my hero... but the business side of football ruines the game...IMO I lost a lot of respect for how it went down at the end... or at least my perception of it...

LTH

 

[Our Man in Chicago]

Mike Holmgren made us respectable.

You have no idea how hard it was to get consistent Seahawks news in pre-internet Chicago. If you didn't have a Sporting News subscription or access to cable, you were out of luck. Overnight, Holmgren's signing was on the front page of every sports page in the country. Seattle couldn't make the front pages when they were headed out of town.

The Seahawks hadn't had a winning season in eight years, and they hadn't won a single playoff game in 14 years. Given those numbers, there was no need for national respect. In his first season, Holmgren had a winning record, and although it took him six more years, we not only won a playoff game, but we also made it to the Super Bowl.

For those that suffered through the Flores/Erickson era, Holmgren was manna. No offense meant, but I don't expect newer fans to understand this perspective.

 

[LTH]

Mike Holmgren made us respectable.

You have no idea how hard it was to get consistent Seahawks news in pre-internet Chicago. If you didn't have a Sporting News subscription or access to cable, you were out of luck. Overnight, Holmgren's signing was on the front page of every sports page in the country. Seattle couldn't make the front pages when they were headed out of town.

The Seahawks hadn't had a winning season in eight years, and they hadn't won a single playoff game in 15. Given those numbers, there was no need for national respect. In his first season, Holmgren had a winning record, and although it took him seven more years, we not only won a playoff game, but we also made it to the Super Bowl.

For those that suffered through the Flores/Erickson era, Holmgren was manna. No offense meant, but I don't expect newer fans to understand this perspective.

Your right dude Ill do my home work better next time .....

 

[Sarlacc83]

Holmgren was a transitional coach, and it can be very difficult to separate what he means to us from our emotions. (I feel like this same thing goes for S. Alexander.) I have a lot of respect for what he did, but at the same time, (and for good reason) I don't miss him or his system. However, back in the day, he provided a tremendous level of excitement because you knew when the team took the field, it was going to be a carefully constructed clock. (Which was also its downfall.)

And you can see the influence. People still expect the machine to come out and grind down defenses with methodical precision. (Which is a point of view that we should discard for Pete Carroll's sandbox offense, but whatevs.) So obviously a lot of people liked it if they're still pining for that look.

 

[Our Man in Chicago]

Your right dude Ill do my home work better next time .....

I wasn't trying to sound uppity; it's just facts + feelings. As was mentioned upthread, Shaun Alexander elicits the same perspective. Not the best RB Seattle's ever had, but he kept us on the national Respectability Map after Rickey Watters (and then Ahman Green) left.

 

[KiwiHawk]

When Holmgren was here the front office was absolutely poisonous. Even with Holmgren as the nominal GM, he still had Trader Bob Whitsitt undermining his authority. Then he had to deal with Ruskell disassembling the one completely awesome thing that Holmgren built, which was our offensive line.

It's completely understandable that he refused to stay/return unless he had complete control over the players - he was burned badly on it. It's equally understandable that Seattle didn't give that back, since by and large a monkey flinging poo at a draft board could make better selections.

It also paved the way for the Seahawks to allow Carroll to select his own GM so that we could finally have a functional GM/Coach relationship, which has paid off HUGE for us.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

Holmgren was a transitional coach, and it can be very difficult to separate what he means to us from our emotions. (I feel like this same thing goes for S. Alexander.) I have a lot of respect for what he did, but at the same time, (and for good reason) I don't miss him or his system. However, back in the day, he provided a tremendous level of excitement because you knew when the team took the field, it was going to be a carefully constructed clock. (Which was also its downfall.)

And you can see the influence. People still expect the machine to come out and grind down defenses with methodical precision. (Which is a point of view that we should discard for Pete Carroll's sandbox offense, but whatevs.) So obviously a lot of people liked it if they're still pining for that look.

Truth. Specifically, Holmgren built an offense that ran through its offensive line to a far greater degree than almost any I've ever seen. And still everyone expects the same as if it's the only way to go. They don't realize that NO other team's fan base jumps to blame the O-line as quickly as Seattle's. Seriously, there's not another city in the nation that thinks that way. The OL is a factor, but the QB usually gets looked at first.

 

[sutz]

Holmgren was a transitional coach, and it can be very difficult to separate what he means to us from our emotions. (I feel like this same thing goes for S. Alexander.) I have a lot of respect for what he did, but at the same time, (and for good reason) I don't miss him or his system. However, back in the day, he provided a tremendous level of excitement because you knew when the team took the field, it was going to be a carefully constructed clock. (Which was also its downfall.)

And you can see the influence. People still expect the machine to come out and grind down defenses with methodical precision. (Which is a point of view that we should discard for Pete Carroll's sandbox offense, but whatevs.) So obviously a lot of people liked it if they're still pining for that look.

Truth. Specifically, Holmgren built an offense that ran through its offensive line to a far greater degree than almost any I've ever seen. And still everyone expects the same as if it's the only way to go. They don't realize that NO other team's fan base jumps to blame the O-line as quickly as Seattle's. Seriously, there's not another city in the nation that thinks that way. The OL is a factor, but the QB usually gets looked at first.

Yeah, I remember commenting, and it was one of my favorite lines: Holmgren only had 4 running plays.

The Hutch/Jones combo was a massive part of our success, and once that broke up, it was pretty much all downhill.

Now, I like that we have some variety and versatility in our running game.

 

[crosfam]

He is great football coach and football mind. Look how many head coaches he has developed, some who made it big some who did not (and are now or were decent coordinators, etc.) Mariucci, Reid, Gruden, Morningwheg, Zorn, Shurmer, Sherman, Rhodes. Would have been a good GM, but Cleveland was a mess. I like Mora, but I think they forced him on Holmgren as a coach in waiting and ushered him out the door. Wish Zorn would be given a chance as an OC somewhere. Great with quarterbacks.

He rebuilt Green Bay and Seattle into winners. He lost SBXL, but I think we won at least four division titles in a row, and went to the playoffs most years of his tenure.

Nothing but respect.

 

[LTH]

When Holmgren was here the front office was absolutely poisonous. Even with Holmgren as the nominal GM, he still had Trader Bob Whitsitt undermining his authority. Then he had to deal with Ruskell disassembling the one completely awesome thing that Holmgren built, which was our offensive line.

It's completely understandable that he refused to stay/return unless he had complete control over the players - he was burned badly on it. It's equally understandable that Seattle didn't give that back, since by and large a monkey flinging poo at a draft board could make better selections.

It also paved the way for the Seahawks to allow Carroll to select his own GM so that we could finally have a functional GM/Coach relationship, which has paid off HUGE for us.

I think it is very interesting that the Hawks picked Carroll after years of front office dysfunction...

 

[DavidSeven]

Yeah, his offense was clockwork. Especially at the beginning of games. At times, it was also frustrating to watch because you could sense that the players and coaches weren't allowed to do much outside of that framework. We weren't designed for explosive plays. In that sense, this offense is actually a lot more fun to watch at times.

Holmgren was a great coach. A legendary one. His resume and coaching tree speaks for itself. His mid-2000s success likely opened Paul Allen's eyes to the value of top-end coaching and leadership. If not for Holmgren, Allen probably doesn't scrap everything for Pete Carroll. Holmgren deserves a ton of appreciation in Seattle, and I'd wager that he gets it from people who remember that era. The fact that his eventual successor might just be the G.O.A.T. just skews perspective a little bit.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

How can you not have respect for Holmgren? As a coach, leader, teacher and just a great human being aside he put our franchise on the map. For that I will forever be grateful.

We might not have this version of the Hawks had Holmgren not come to Seattle and made this franchise competitive and relevant on a national stage.

 

[OrFan]

Liked him when he was here until the last year. Boring and predictable football most of the time, but hey we were desperate.

I was happy that he made us a real football team for a change, but I was so very happy when he left. Mora then filled in as simply someone to physically be there until we got a real coach.

 

[USCEAHAWKS]

Has Pete surpassed Holmgrem as greatest coach in Seahawks history yet?

 

[sutz]

Has Pete surpassed Holmgrem as greatest coach in Seahawks history yet?

Oh, yeah. He re-built faster, and got to the SB faster and actually won.

No doubt.

 

[OrFan]

Has Pete surpassed Holmgrem as greatest coach in Seahawks history yet?

No doubt about it, not even close.

 

[pmedic920]

^^^^
Pete is on his way to being one of the best coaches in HISTORY period.
Not just Seahawks history.
Very few have won titles in the NCAA and the NFL.

How many have won multiple titles in both?
Just sayin'

If the support of our ownership continues as is, there is no telling what Pete will accomplish with the Seahawks but I for one, like the outlook.

 

[Shock2k]

Chuck Knox, Mike Holmgren and Pete Carroll will be the three most influential coaches in talking about Seahawks historically.

Holmgren was great, he turned a "black hole" of an organization into something that was recognized nationally for the first time. You should never underestimate how that positioned success later on.