Pete or Holmgren

[Steve2222]

Lots not forget Holmgren was a very conservative play caller. Stop talking Holmy didn’t have the talent Carroll did. Sure the 2013 team was better than the 2005 team, but the 2005 were no slouches. Possibly the greatest OL ever assembled, a fringe HOF caliber HB, and a very good QB. There was no excuse for the 05 team not to win it all.

 

[TwistedHusky]

It is a weird question.

Without Pete, we probably don't HAVE the talent in first place. He was a part architect of one of the deepest and most dominant teams in recent NFL history. So without Pete, that team never gets built.

But Pete has a reputation of doing less with more. Since USC, really.

Assuming the team is available, does Holmgren walk it into the SB? Not the year we won the SB, for sure. Remember Holmgren? He used to kill me because he had a problem playing his rookies even when we were paper thin in depth. There is ZERO chance that Wilson would have started over whatshisname if you just handed that roster to Mike.

Worse, he would have never accepted Lynch and Lynch would have found himself on the bench quickly.

Assuming that, if Mike walked into the team with Lynch and Wilson cemented? Say right after we lost the 2nd SB?

We probably win 1 more if not 2.

There is very little argument you can make that Pete did not underachieve. He got us a SB victory in one of the greatest, most dominant performances in a SB. But then he took essentially that team and struggled to get past the wildcard round with it for years. Every year it was picked as a SB favorite or dark horse. Every year it was literally embarrassed if not flat out curb-stomped in the playoff game following the wildcard.

All with one of the best QBs in the game, some of the best receivers in the game, and one of the best defenses in the game. (Top ten or better)

Pete was the best coach for that first run. Literally the perfect storm. But he was a liability after the 2nd SB loss. And Holmgren would have EASILY won 1-2 SBs with that roster in the same period of time. (Though he would have never allowed the line to get that bad since he would have never accepted rolling in basketball players and former UPS deliverymen as the OL)

Mike was a far better coach. Pete is a far better architect and talent developer. But we never would have had the roster we had without Pete. So that has to be factored in.

 

[scutterhawk]

Give Mike Holmgren the Seahawks rosters of '12-'16 and he wins more than 1 superbowl guaranteed.

LOL, true...But on the other hand, give Pete Carroll Mike Holmgren's Offensive linemen and he too would win more than his one Super Bowl.
Mike Holmgren was an Offensive/Quarterback guru.
Pete Carroll is a Defensive wizard.
Imagine what it would have been like to have them both Coaching this team at the same time.

 

[jlwaters1]

Sorry, Pete got us a Bowl, no other questions can be asked.

Well when I look at the talent both coaches had, it's not an outlandish question. Mike didn't have the better QB ( Matt was damm good though). Didn't have the offense.

Hmmm, c'mon man. Dig deeper.

What are you talking about? The Holmgren Offense was better for longer, it just never had an elite defense.

Pete IMO, is the better coach.

 

[rjdriver]

Lots not forget Holmgren was a very conservative play caller. Stop talking Holmy didn’t have the talent Carroll did. Sure the 2013 team was better than the 2005 team, but the 2005 were no slouches. Possibly the greatest OL ever assembled, a fringe HOF caliber HB, and a very good QB. There was no excuse for the 05 team not to win it all.

Jerome's homecoming in Deeeeeeetroit and Mike Levy are rather solid reasons why the 05 team did not win it all. We beat them statistically but no coach alive can compensate for the deficiencies we had in the secondary for that game. I mean, didn't we literally have an insurance agent playing DB?

I agree with he poster who said they never worried about Mike being out-coached on game day. Too conservative at times ?
I guess, but I didn't have many "AYFKM with that decision?" moments with Mike. I have more than a few times with Pete. Pete overall built a better program, I'm forever grateful. X's and O's, I'm taking Holmgren.

 

[pmedic920]

Who’s to say that the 2012/2013 squad would have even “played” for Mike?

Chemistry and intangibles play such a huge role in football, I think that argument holds almost zero weight.

We can not claim that the effort, or amalgamation would be the same.


Pete rules, Mike drools.....

And I loved having Mike while we had him.

 

[AgentDib]

There's not really a question about it because Pete succeeded on the personnel side where Holmgren did not. However, both coaches were excellent here and there's no need to trash either one just to make the other seem better in comparison. Holmgren was responsible for a really fun set of years to root for the team through most of the 2000s.

Galloway fiasco, poison pill mismanagement with Hutch, signing freaking Michael Sinclair to a 7 year deal, dealing with Jeremy Stevens, some TERRIBLE draft picks (Lamar King?)...........and it took him seven years to get us to a SB, and lost.

There's no doubt that Holmgren failed as a GM. In fairness the poison pill is 100% not on him though; at that point Ruskell was in charge of personnel and Holmgren was livid about the transition tag (albeit after he saw the outcome).

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Who’s to say that the 2012/2013 squad would have even “played” for Mike?

Chemistry and intangibles play such a huge role in football, I think that argument holds almost zero weight.

We can not claim that the effort, or amalgamation would be the same.


Pete rules, Mike drools.....

And I loved having Mike while we had him.

Add in the fact that Holmgren was a very strict measurables drafter, he would have never even drafted guys like Sherman, Kam, Russell, etc. It's why he kept drafting stiffs like Brandon Weedon even after he left here..............and he's admitted as much on the radio about Russell, saying he never would have drafted him.

IMO that's what makes Pete such a better overall coach. Yes Holmgren was probably a better time manager and X's and O's details oriented coach.

But Pete's IMO a visionary, a coach that's changed the way you can tap into raw talent and mine production. He's far more a teacher of the game and superior philosophical coach than Holmgren ever was.

 

[purpleneer]

Holmgren is the the most overrated Seahawk ever by a large margin. Carroll has issues, but anyone who even considers the comparison debatable just baffles me.

 

[scutterhawk]

Lot's of what if's going on here, but facts are facts.
Like I said before, Mike Holmgren = Offensive Guru, his Offensive Line was absolutely stellar.
Reality = Pete Carroll's >HEALTHY DEFENSE < destroyed a Peyton Manning led "Stellar Offense" to win us our FIRST EVER LOMBARDI, and on top of that, in the following Season, Pete takes his > INJURY RIDDLED DEFENSE < and loses a SQUEAKER playing against one of the most prolific Coach & Quarterback HOF combo's of ALL TIMES.
Pete is guilty of relying on Cable & Bevell to draw up an Offensive attack (like giving a hand grenade to a couple of monkeys).
Pete got away from his always compete when it came to the LOB, he pretty much rested on their abilities to own the whole back half of the field, and he put his money on them (The Lion's Share Of The Money) injuries forced him into retooling.
There isn't any question that Pete is the best Seahawks Head Coach EVER...Just too many shattered records to argue otherwise.

 

[T-Hawk]

It's Pete.

For those saying that Holmgren would've won more if dropped into our 2012 team, no. Holmgren would've started Matt Flynn and not given Wilson a chance to compete for the job. Flynn probably would've been good enough to not lose the job, and we'd never see Wilson hoisting the Lombardi.

Also, both coaches have roster building as part of their jobs, Pete does that better which is why we had the stacked roster we did. You can't take a strength of Pete's and say Holmgren would've done better with that roster. Pete started building that team in 2010, by purging it of Homgren's leftovers and starting from scratch. That was part of Pete being a great coach, building that stacked team.

Holmgren was great, I went from casual fan to die hard during his tenure and have great memories of his teams, but Pete is our best coach ever.

 

[chris98251]

Put Mike in one end of the building and Pete in the other, Let John do his research and put his head together with each of them separately and bring in Howard Mudd for the Line decisions.

Mike calls the offense Pete dictates philosophy and runs the defense and you would have a great team for a long time. Each side has his strengths, Mike went all in on offense and his defense was secondary and tried to fill with F.A.'s Pete is just the opposite and went all in on defense and our line suffered, also due to Cables grip on his position and Petes loyalty. You can't beat Refs, no coach can. by the way a game can be steered and you get a oops were sorry is your best response.


Both Coaches had missed opportunities, Mike wanted the big hat but his real skill was teaching and offense and developing QB's . Yes he was conservative, but so is Pete in a lot of ways, Pete takes shots but wants to use the run game as much as Mike wanted to use the short passing game for ball control.

Ray Rhodes never had the horses on defense to be a real impact coach as well, he was left with the try to find guys that work, some hit like Chad Brown, others didn't Like Kirkman. Our Pass rush and secondary was never really formidable, We had Springs and Robinson for a time but not much more as a collective unit. We picked up tired DE's a lot. We had the same third down issue with Holmgren hold on 1st and 2nd but third down big gain.

As far as our SB with Holmgren, play any other location other then Pittsburgh and I think we win due to the love for the Bus situation that was going on there.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

Plop Holmgren down on the '12 Seahawks the defense is already built. He just has to worry about developing a rookie QB in RW. Which would have gone fantastically imo, because that is what Holmgren's expertise was.

Mike Holmgren would have shot Russell after a week if he didn't have a coronary first. Do you remember the apoplectic purple-faced fits of rage he went into on the sideline every time Matt did the whirlybird or even whispered the word "improvisation"? Holmgren may have made his fame off a pair of notorious off-scripters, but he didn't like it. He was working to corral those guys in the timing-based WCO as best he could.

Wilson has a lot of Favre in him, though it's never really been said. As someone else has already pointed out, Holmgren would have traded Wilson at the first opportunity and gone with Matt Flynn, possibly doing quite well at it.

 

[Maulbert]

Plop Holmgren down on the '12 Seahawks the defense is already built. He just has to worry about developing a rookie QB in RW. Which would have gone fantastically imo, because that is what Holmgren's expertise was.

Mike Holmgren would have shot Russell after a week if he didn't have a coronary first. Do you remember the apoplectic purple-faced fits of rage he went into on the sideline every time Matt did the whirlybird or even whispered the word "improvisation"? Holmgren may have made his fame off a pair of notorious off-scripters, but he didn't like it. He was working to corral those guys in the timing-based WCO as best he could.

Wilson has a lot of Favre in him, though it's never really been said. As someone else has already pointed out, Holmgren would have traded Wilson at the first opportunity and gone with Matt Flynn, possibly doing quite well at it.

Also, Holmgren thought drafting Wilson was a mistake. He admitted he was wrong about him.

It's Pete on his best day, it's Pete on his worst day. There is no debate. I like Holmgren. There is no disrespect in this.

 

[Ad Hawk]

Plop Holmgren down on the '12 Seahawks the defense is already built. He just has to worry about developing a rookie QB in RW. Which would have gone fantastically imo, because that is what Holmgren's expertise was.

Mike Holmgren would have shot Russell after a week if he didn't have a coronary first. Do you remember the apoplectic purple-faced fits of rage he went into on the sideline every time Matt did the whirlybird or even whispered the word "improvisation"? Holmgren may have made his fame off a pair of notorious off-scripters, but he didn't like it. He was working to corral those guys in the timing-based WCO as best he could.

Wilson has a lot of Favre in him, though it's never really been said. As someone else has already pointed out, Holmgren would have traded Wilson at the first opportunity and gone with Matt Flynn, possibly doing quite well at it.

Also, Holmgren thought drafting Wilson was a mistake. He admitted he was wrong about him.

It's Pete on his best day, it's Pete on his worst day. There is no debate. I like Holmgren. There is no disrespect in this.

I like Holmgren, too. He was a great coach.

But he didn't create the same winning culture here. His legacy is certainly a different one than Pete's. If you like winning, you accept Pete as a winner, and give the greater kudos for the championship.

 

[MD5eahawks]

As much as I would like to say Holmgren, I have to say Pete. The reasons listed in this thread are good enough but I think after this season Pete will be on top without doubt. Simply because he will have built two different successful teams.

 

[hawknation2018]

For those saying that Holmgren would've won more if dropped into our 2012 team, no. Holmgren would've started Matt Flynn and not given Wilson a chance to compete for the job. Flynn probably would've been good enough to not lose the job, and we'd never see Wilson hoisting the Lombardi.

Wow, good point.

 

[Jerhawk]

If the 2005 Seahawks played against the 2013 Seahawks, who would win?

I think the 2013 team would blow out the 2005 team.

No disrespect to Holmgren, he was our best coach prior to Carroll, but Pete ultimately got this team the title based off a winning culture that he brought with him.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

No doubt. They would get smoked by the 2013 team. And Pete came to the team with an absolute garbage team left from Mora

 

[Jerhawk]

Yep. The team that Holmgren inherited from Erickson was pretty poor too with the exception of Galloway and Springs. But Holmgren was a terrible GM. I know this thread is more focused on who's the better coach, but Holmgren had to get that GM title yanked away from him after a few poor years in free agency, etc.
He even got forced out of Cleveland, which wasn't entirely his fault but still. Pete is a better evaluator of talent, especially on the defensive side of the ball.

Holmgren is an offensive mastermind. It's too bad he couldn't have come back and been our offensive coordinator under Pete, but I doubt he would take a coordinator position.