Pete or Holmgren

[KiwiHawk]

Just some points of order here, and I am not going to comment on the quality of Holmgren as a GM - this is merely to clarify some things and correct some points raised in this thread.

When Holmgren took over, he had Fritz Shurmur as his defensive guru. Unfortunately, Fritz was diagnosed with late-stage cancer so Holmgren had to change plans in mid-stream, from building the defense first to building the offense first. He didn't have someone he trusted like Shurmur to make the calls on defensive players.

Holmgren did, however, assemble possibly the best offensive line the league has ever seen, and placed behind it a running back who had the tools to cash in on the OLs performance. I think that gets under-appreciated quite a bit with respect to Holmgren-as-GM.

The other factor that Holmgren had to deal with was sabotage through the person of Bob Whitsitt. The Jerry Rice fiasco was all Whitsitt's doing - he even asked Largent about the number 80 *after* telling Rice that Largent said it was OK.

The Galloway fiasco was less fiasco than I thin many recognize. Galloway was a naturally gifted athlete who worked hard, but not like Shaquem Grifin hard. After Galloway was injured, he lost a step, and with it most of his difference-making ability as a receiver. He didn't have the self-discipline and work ethic to push during rehab, so when he held out, he simply wasn't the same guy who caught all the amazing touchdowns. We traded him to Dallas for two first-rounds if I recall correctly, and it took him a few years to realize that missing a portion of his natural ability meant he actually had to learn how to play receiver.

Jerramy Stevens. I blame this one less on Holmgren than I do on Itula Mili. Mili was supposed to be the superstar tight end, but was injured most of the time. Then he had one decent season, so he held out the next year for more money. With Mili unreliable and a gaping hole at tight end, Holmgren pulled the trigger on Stevens, who was either going to be a super star or a head case, and turned out to be the latter. Had Mili not been such a flake or had Shurmur been there to advise, we would have drafted Ed Reed, and possibly launched a dynasty.

Most egregiously, however, in this thread is blaming Holmgren for Hutchinson and the poison pill. That was entirely the doing of Tim Ruskell, who was new to the Seahawks and didn't consult with Holmgren regarding Hutchinson before offering the transition tag. He was apparently unaware of conversations where Homlmgren had assured Hutchinson he would go down the Walter Jones route and get the franchise tag while they worked out a long-term deal. Hutchinson took the snub as a serious betrayal, hence the poison pill.

 

[Atradees]

Pete. His whole approach just feels better. I think the rebuild is gonna look great. Bamm Just like that.

 

[NJlargent]

It’s amazing that you guys are satisfied with 2013 and ignore the regression. Major props for being satisfied with one SB and ignoring that Carroll ran lynch and sherman out of town.

 

[mrt144]

I think it really comes down to whether you appreciate offensive or defensive football more, and whether you prefer your coaches be intellectuals or simpler types. Holmgren spoke to me. His brand of football was so rhythmic and beautiful. It was a poem to Pete's death metal. I loved it. Not that I don't love the Pete era, but the Holmgren era just spoke to me as a football analyst. I also think, if given the same exact team, Holmgren would coach circles around him.

That might be part of it but I see myself as appreciating offensive football and especially tactics a lot more than defensive tactics and football. I stick by Pete on this discussion because it was so defiantly different than the bog standard that many teams burn through every 3-4 years. 2017 was especially painful because it was a forgone conclusion before the game started that they'd be borderline drowning on offense from the get go.

But those golden 3 years of 2012 to 2014 were so splendid with just how beastly the defense was.

 

[T-Hawk]

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.

Matt Flynn would've flamed out quickly, that year. Russell would've been inserted into the lineup mid-year, and the rest would've been history.

Nah Flynn would've done just enough to keep the job, and we'd be little brother to the Niners for years. Plus the Harbaugh Niners would've won it all in 2013 and we'd be stuck with them being relevant for longer, since Harbaugh would've been kept around longer. With Holmgren's finesse style team we never overtake the Niners as the new bully of the NFCW.

Let's say your right though, Flynn is terrible and Holmgren goes completely out of character and starts Russell midway through his rookie year (Never would happen, Holmgren hated rookies, he'd be more likely to bring back T-Jack than start Russell)... do you think Holmy is gonna roll out the read option? Without the RO do you think Russell in his second year was good enough to get past that niners defense in 2013 and get us to the Super Bowl?

Our team was constructed by Pete, for Pete's style of play, Holmgren would've done less with the same team.

 

[SeaChat]

For me its a no brainer, Pete Carroll, hands down has done more for the Seahawks than any other coach in it's history. I was never a big Holmgren fan. The Seahawks have been an emotionally charged and driven team from the very start. Holmgren, came in to Seattle and snuffed the spirit out of the Seahawks and tried to convert them into a machine, and while that equated to a few more wins and a run at a Super Bowl, it also took a lot of the fun out of being a fan and out of being a player as well, I'm sure.

I remember watching destroy the confidence of a number of our marquee players when he first took over, and used that to show them the door, in order to make room for his agenda, and the players he was determined to bring in from Green Bay from the onset, and by the way,, none ever measured up to all the expectations.

Pete arrived in Seattle at the perfect time, he breathed real life back into the Seahawks and gave them and all of us back that phenomenal spirit that had gone missing during the Holmgren era. Pete gave the Seahawks, the 12th Man, which in my humble opinion is something pretty damn special.

The thing that makes attending a game in the CLINK, is that pulsating, breathing spirit of the 12th man, that players and fans alike describe as tangible and emotionally overwhelming at times. I hope that when the day comes that Pete Carroll decides to hang it up, that the front office has enough sense to replace him with someone who truly "gets it", and by that I mean that gets what it is that makes this team tick, and what makes the fans feel like they are a part of it all, like no other team in the NFL has come close to duplicating.

Next time your setting or standing in the CLINK watching a game, and you see fans from our opponents setting around you, listen to what they have to say about their experience in our stadium verses being at home in their own. Sure they root for their team, but it's no where near the same as what they witness happening around them in Seattle.

 

[Chapow]

It’s amazing that you guys are satisfied with 2013 and ignore the regression. Major props for being satisfied with one SB and ignoring that Carroll ran lynch and sherman out of town.

As opposed to being satisfied with the 0 Super Bowls that Holmgren won here?

You did notice that this is a Pete or Holmgren thread, right? The very first post says,

Simple question: Who was the better Seahawks coach?

People are welcome to believe that Holmgren is a better coach than Pete if they choose to, but the fact is that Pete is the more successful Seahawks head coach and he's had more success in a shorter amount of time.

But clearly some people would rather deal in unknowable and unprovable fantasy scenarios than actual results and facts.

 

[T-Hawk]

It’s amazing that you guys are satisfied with 2013 and ignore the regression. Major props for being satisfied with one SB and ignoring that Carroll ran lynch and sherman out of town.

Why can't we wish we had more than 1 SB AND believe Carroll > Holmgren? I certainly wish we had 2 or 3, but winning 1 and getting to a second is clearly better than going to 1 and losing.

Also, the regression we had after our SB loss in 2005 was much quicker and more drastic then what we've had since our 2014 loss. Unless we only win 4 games this year, our current team has done better post SB loss.

 

[pittpnthrs]

IMO Pete is a far more philisophically innovative coach than Holmgren ever was.

Wow, not me. Having an offense that does nothing for 3 quarters while relying on your defense to bail you out time and time again isnt a startling strategy in my opinion. Thankfully for Pete he had the defense to do it. He doesnt anymore so lets see how this year goes.

Again, give both coaches equal teams with equal talent and Holmgren would bury Carroll. Carroll needs top tier talent to succeed. Holmgren did more with less.

Carrol CREATED that top talent using late rounders, practice squad players and UFA's.

That's exactly what I'm talking about, Carrol is an innovator in how to scout, mine talent, coach them up and get the very best out of them.

Holmgren was a great QB evaluator and developer, but that was about it. He needed Walter Jones, Hutchinson, Sean Alexander, Trufant, Tobek and numerous other high picks to finally get to a SB, and lose.

How can you say Holmgren would have done better with equal talent, when he could never have drafted and developed the talent Carroll has. He didn't have the vision, patience or philosophy to do so.

Yes Carroll created that team when he was familiar with the college players from being with USC and had help from McCloughan. Whats he done lately? Not much. Heck, Schneider had to convince Pete to take Wilson anyways, so lets not leg hump him that hard. He got really lucky that Wilson panned out like he did or Flynn would have been his QB too.

I give Carroll credit in that he is a good talent evaluator for the most part and he developed a monster team, but when it comes to the X's and O's during the game, he's caused more than a few head scratchers during the seasons. I guarantee Holmgren wouldn't have spent the 16' season trying to continuously run the ball into a brick wall when it was apparent that it wasn't working or going to work. Its those things that put Pete below him in my opinion.

This season is going to tell the tale. Lets see how Pete does with this middle of the road defense we have now. I want to see how he changes things if he does.

 

[Ad Hawk]

Yes Carroll created that team when he was familiar with the college players from being with USC and had help from McCloughan. Whats he done lately? Not much. Heck, Schneider had to convince Pete to take Wilson anyways, so lets not leg hump him that hard. He got really lucky that Wilson panned out like he did or Flynn would have been his QB too. I give Carroll credit in that he is a good talent evaluator for the most part and he developed a monster team, but when it comes to the X's and O's during the game, he's caused more than a few head scratchers during the seasons. I guarantee Holmgren wouldn't have spent the 16' season trying to continuously run the ball into a brick wall when it was apparent that it wasn't working or going to work. Its those things that put Pete below him in my opinion.

Wow, the revisionist history is strong with this one.

Firist, way too much hyperbole about people's appreciation for PC.

But notice that Pete listened to JS about Wilson, and Pete made the final decision to play Wilson, not JS. That's to Pete's credit, not a knock on him.

Holmgren ran the ball when we were in 3rd and 19. Why? Because he was ultra conservative, and didn't take many risks, even when the situation might allow it. Head-scratchers with Holmgren? You bet. I remember Mo Morris getting 2-3 yards fairly consistently, and still kept getting the ball.

Also, PC developed a championship team from nothing. Holmgren never did. That's why Pete is the better coach.

And he's not done yet. If he takes this team back to the playoffs this year or next, it will speak volumes about his leadership and philosophy.

 

[mrt144]

Yes Carroll created that team when he was familiar with the college players from being with USC and had help from McCloughan. Whats he done lately? Not much. Heck, Schneider had to convince Pete to take Wilson anyways, so lets not leg hump him that hard. He got really lucky that Wilson panned out like he did or Flynn would have been his QB too. I give Carroll credit in that he is a good talent evaluator for the most part and he developed a monster team, but when it comes to the X's and O's during the game, he's caused more than a few head scratchers during the seasons. I guarantee Holmgren wouldn't have spent the 16' season trying to continuously run the ball into a brick wall when it was apparent that it wasn't working or going to work. Its those things that put Pete below him in my opinion.

Wow, the revisionist history is strong with this one.

Firist, way too much hyperbole about people's appreciation for PC.

But notice that Pete listened to JS about Wilson, and Pete made the final decision to play Wilson, not JS. That's to Pete's credit, not a knock on him.

Holmgren ran the ball when we were in 3rd and 19. Why? Because he was ultra conservative, and didn't take many risks, even when the situation might allow it. Head-scratchers with Holmgren? You bet. I remember Mo Morris getting 2-3 yards fairly consistently, and still kept getting the ball.

Also, PC developed a championship team from nothing. Holmgren never did. That's why Pete is the better coach.

And he's not done yet. If he takes this team back to the playoffs this year or next, it will speak volumes about his leadership and philosophy.

The classic 3rd and 19 draw baby.

Fwiw i think holmgren is like the era definition of a solid coach. In his time he did the typical things of his era amd didnt stick out because of them.

 

[Ad Hawk]

The classic 3rd and 19 draw baby.

Fwiw i think holmgren is like the era definition of a solid coach. In his time he did the typical things of his era amd didnt stick out because of them.

I agree.

Pete came along and changed the way people played and drafted defensive players.

Can he continue to evolve, without changing the overall philosophy? That's yet to be seen, but I believe he will.

 

[rjdriver]

Even though I would pick Pete to answer the specific OP question, let me be perfectly clear...

I would take McCormack, Flores, and especially Mora over either of these two bums.

 

[scutterhawk]

IMO Pete is a far more philisophically innovative coach than Holmgren ever was.

give both coaches equal teams with equal talent and Holmgren would bury Carroll.

Like the way that HOF Payton Manning & the Bronco's buried him in SB 48?
"Bury" BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHHA---Pete DESIGNED his historic Defense...PETE DID THAT.....Pete took the Seahawks to TWO Super Bowls in a row, DOMINATED the first with 43 to 8, and WITH SEVERAL INJURIES ON HIS VAUNTED Defense, CAME WITHIN ONE PLAY (against one of the GOAT Quarterbacks) to taking home our 2nd Lombardi...bury LOLOL

 

[Ad Hawk]

Even though I would pick Pete to answer the specific OP question, let me be perfectly clear...

I would take McCormack, Flores, and especially Mora over either of these two bums.

The gentle voice of reason.

:lol:

 

[Ad Hawk]

IMO Pete is a far more philisophically innovative coach than Holmgren ever was.

give both coaches equal teams with equal talent and Holmgren would bury Carroll.

Like the way that HOF Payton Manning & the Bronco's buried him in SB 48?
"Bury" BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHHA---Pete DESIGNED his historic Defense...PETE DID THAT.....Pete took the Seahawks to TWO Super Bowls in a row, DOMINATED the first with 43 to 8, and WITH SEVERAL INJURIES ON HIS VAUNTED Defense, CAME WITHIN ONE PLAY (against one of the GOAT Quarterbacks) to taking home our 2nd Lombardi...bury LOLOL

Nobody is as intentionally negative and contrary as pitt. . . he must be a troll.

 

[pittpnthrs]

Yes Carroll created that team when he was familiar with the college players from being with USC and had help from McCloughan. Whats he done lately? Not much. Heck, Schneider had to convince Pete to take Wilson anyways, so lets not leg hump him that hard. He got really lucky that Wilson panned out like he did or Flynn would have been his QB too. I give Carroll credit in that he is a good talent evaluator for the most part and he developed a monster team, but when it comes to the X's and O's during the game, he's caused more than a few head scratchers during the seasons. I guarantee Holmgren wouldn't have spent the 16' season trying to continuously run the ball into a brick wall when it was apparent that it wasn't working or going to work. Its those things that put Pete below him in my opinion.

Wow, the revisionist history is strong with this one.

Firist, way too much hyperbole about people's appreciation for PC.

But notice that Pete listened to JS about Wilson, and Pete made the final decision to play Wilson, not JS. That's to Pete's credit, not a knock on him.

Holmgren ran the ball when we were in 3rd and 19. Why? Because he was ultra conservative, and didn't take many risks, even when the situation might allow it. Head-scratchers with Holmgren? You bet. I remember Mo Morris getting 2-3 yards fairly consistently, and still kept getting the ball.

Also, PC developed a championship team from nothing. Holmgren never did. That's why Pete is the better coach.

And he's not done yet. If he takes this team back to the playoffs this year or next, it will speak volumes about his leadership and philosophy.

Yeah, Holmgren ran the draw on 3rd and longs because the percentage of picking up a 1st down on those downs are pretty much non existent. What exactly does Carroll do that's so great on 3rd and forevers? Cant believe your so hung up on Holmgren no gambling on 3 and longs.

So the 2005 team that went to the SB was given to Holmgren? Ok.

If Carroll takes this team to the playoffs this year and makes it a contender in 19', i'll be shocked and eat crow. As it is, I think Pete will be gone after the 19' season when his contract is up and we will be mediocre for the next couple seasons.

 

[Ad Hawk]

Yeah, Holmgren ran the draw on 3rd and longs because the percentage of picking up a 1st down on those downs are pretty much non existent. What exactly does Carroll do that's so great on 3rd and forevers? Cant believe your so hung up on Holmgren no gambling on 3 and longs.

So the 2005 team that went to the SB was given to Holmgren? Ok.

If Carroll takes this team to the playoffs this year and makes it a contender in 19', i'll be shocked and eat crow. As it is, I think Pete will be gone after the 19' season when his contract is up and we will be mediocre for the next couple seasons.

What a huge overreaction! I'm not hung up on it at all; it's simply exemplary. I also mentioned another head-scratcher, right? And I'm sure we could come up with more. Holmgren wasn't exempt from his share of questionable plays.

How about at least Russ takes shots downfield on 3rd and long, rather than a play that will almost never gain more that 5-6? Yep, that's an improvement.

Did Holmgren win? Nope. Didn't get it done. I still loved following the Holmgren Hawks; I knew we could win any game we played. The NFCC game in 05 was fantastic!

 

[scutterhawk]

IMO Pete is a far more philisophically innovative coach than Holmgren ever was.

give both coaches equal teams with equal talent and Holmgren would bury Carroll.

Like the way that HOF Payton Manning & the Bronco's buried him in SB 48?
"Bury" BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHHA---Pete DESIGNED his historic Defense...PETE DID THAT.....Pete took the Seahawks to TWO Super Bowls in a row, DOMINATED the first with 43 to 8, and WITH SEVERAL INJURIES ON HIS VAUNTED Defense, CAME WITHIN ONE PLAY (against one of the GOAT Quarterbacks) to taking home our 2nd Lombardi...bury LOLOL

Nobody is as intentionally negative and contrary as pitt. . . he must be a troll.

Yeah, he do say some funny shit....WAIT!, is he a stand up comedian?
On the first page, (post # 7 ) 'Warden' showed how Pete has racked up MORE wins.
I'm seeing arguments in here where Holmgren had a less talented team?, REALLY?...Big Walt, Hutchinson, Tobeck, Gray, Locklear...That's some mega talented Offensive Line, PLUS, Mack Strong & Mr. money in the red zone Shaun Alexander.
Holmgren just didn't have Carroll's wizardry when it came to building an all world Defense
Pete's "Much More Talented Team" was also hamstrung with Tom Cable & Darryl Bevell mucking up the Offense, a lot of the guys like to OMIT that one little fact when trying to make their arguments for Holmgren over Carroll.

 

[sc85sis]

You misread me. I said he never would have created those rosters in the first place.

If he inherited them? Well, I have my doubts about any coach willingly leaving with that roster. But say Pete died and Holmgren took over... it's hard to know, but he would never have stood for our O-line and running game, so he may have gotten rid of some D in order to get some O.

Line them up

'12-'16

Pete Carroll wins 1 superbowl.

Now give Holmgren the same shot.

How many does Holmgren win?

Holmgren would never have the same roster during that time period because so many of our best players were handpicked by Carroll (Marshawn Lynch, Kam Chancellor, Earl Thomas, Richard Sherman, Bobby Wagner, K.J. Wright, etc.).

The defense never would have approached the same level of dominance without Carroll’s philosophy and development.

Now, Carroll as HC and Holmgren as OC would have been legendary.

Those players are on the roster already if Holmgren takes over in 2012.

My stance is simple.

GIVE HOLMGREN THE SAME COLLECTION OF PLAYERS, AND HE WOULD OF WON MORE SUPERBOWLS.
('12-'16) than Pete Carroll.


Now give Pete Carroll Tim Ruskell without Dan Quinn. How Many Superbowls does he make?

That's right. Carroll hasn't done anything without Dan Quinn as his DC. Dan Quinn took over the floundering Falcons, and got them back into the Superbowl.

Pete Carroll without Dan Quinn. 0 NFC Championships. 0 Superbowls. And a bunch of underachieving teams.

Dan Quinn running a defense designed by...Pete Carroll. Yes, Dan did the play calling, but at the root it's Pete's defense.

Also, Pete would never have been dumb enough to take the job with Ruskell as the GM. That's part of why he stayed at USC for nine years and thought (before the Hawks came calling) he wouldn't ever leave. He wasn't going to take another NFL job without getting the control he wanted over personnel after getting burned so badly in NY and New England, and he didn't think an NFL team would give him that control.

And these "what if" scenarios are pointless anyway. Holmgren with Pete's roster. Pete with Holmgren's. You can't compare what never existed and never would.