Pete or Holmgren

Steve2222

New member
Joined
Aug 31, 2012
Messages
1,993
Reaction score
1
rjdriver":1uszzy9n said:
Steve2222":1uszzy9n said:
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.

Negative. The year we had the insurance salesman (Pete Hunter was his name) was the 2006 playoffs. We were pretty healthy the entire 2005 season. Ken Hamlin was really the only huge loss on the season if memory serves me correct.

And yes. Holmgren was incredibly conservative. It got pretty infuriating at times.
 

chris98251

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Messages
40,160
Reaction score
2,398
Location
Roy Wa.
People say that Wilson would not have been drafted or given a chance with Holmgren, just one name Seneca Wallace, he was given a lot of chances, and if Wilson performed how he performed his first pre season before I think we would have seen him start. The real Key is how would Wilson react to a more volatile coach? Would he rise up with more fire or crumble beneath Mikes strong personality and QB coaching style. The difference between Flynn and Wilson was so obvious Mike would have seen it easily.
 

Fade

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2014
Messages
5,454
Reaction score
2,988
Location
Truth Ray
chris98251":3jsv70u2 said:
People say that Wilson would not have been drafted or given a chance with Holmgren, just one name Seneca Wallace, he was given a lot of chances, and if Wilson performed how he performed his first pre season before I think we would have seen him start. The real Key is how would Wilson react to a more volatile coach? Would he rise up with more fire or crumble beneath Mikes strong personality and QB coaching style. The difference between Flynn and Wilson was so obvious Mike would have seen it easily.

No. Mike would've cut his young outstanding & cheap defense, and kept RW on the bench behind Flynn for eternity. /s

LMAO.

It may be hard for some to accept, but Holmgren would've been amazing with John Schneider & Russell Wilson.

John Schneider being his Ron Wolf, and Russell Wilson being his Brett Favre. With a young cheap defense.

HOLMGREN would win a lot of games with that group, and at least a couple of Superbowls, if not more.
 

toffee

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 9, 2016
Messages
11,367
Reaction score
7,518
Location
SoCal Desert
My dream combo would either be Pete as HC with Holm as OC/aHC or Holm as HC with Pete as DC/aHC.

See I am greedy and dreaming


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Maulbert

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 8, 2014
Messages
8,950
Reaction score
2,038
Location
In the basement of Reynholm Industries
chris98251":unrfan9t said:
People say that Wilson would not have been drafted or given a chance with Holmgren, just one name Seneca Wallace, he was given a lot of chances, and if Wilson performed how he performed his first pre season before I think we would have seen him start. The real Key is how would Wilson react to a more volatile coach? Would he rise up with more fire or crumble beneath Mikes strong personality and QB coaching style. The difference between Flynn and Wilson was so obvious Mike would have seen it easily.

Holmgren admitted on 950 KJR he would never have drafted Russell Wilson. He thought it was a mistake to take him.
 

olyfan63

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 17, 2012
Messages
5,986
Reaction score
2,102
rjdriver":2bzau3ev said:
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
--snip--

In SBXL,we had man-off-the-street Etric Pruitt playing safety after Marquand Manuel got injured in the 2nd quarter.
Ruskell/Holmgren had a paper-thin roster with no margin for injury on D, no Next Man Up. IMO, along with the refs, this lost us SBXL. Pittsburgh's big plays involved Pruitt not truly knowing how to play in Seattle's D. Player personnel failure for the Holmgren/Ruskell regime. Costs us the Owl.

Pete had his own Etric Pruitt brain fart in SB XLIX, by leaving CB Marcus Burley inactive on game day. Tharald Simon got abused by Brady and the Pats receivers. When we lost Jeremy Lane after his INT, it screwed over our whole range of matchups. Marcus Burley would have been a small dropoff from Jeremy Lane, and could cover the Patriots small quick receivers. Tharald Simon got torched repeatedly by Brady, and was the weak link the Pats repeatedly exploited. Pete had the player, but miscalculated badly on Gameday. IMO, if Burley is active for the game, when Lane goes down, Burley goes in, and we win the game. Game day personnel decision failure for Carroll/Schneider regime. Cost us the Owl.
 

chris98251

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Messages
40,160
Reaction score
2,398
Location
Roy Wa.
Maulbert":3ad69p8k said:
chris98251":3ad69p8k said:
People say that Wilson would not have been drafted or given a chance with Holmgren, just one name Seneca Wallace, he was given a lot of chances, and if Wilson performed how he performed his first pre season before I think we would have seen him start. The real Key is how would Wilson react to a more volatile coach? Would he rise up with more fire or crumble beneath Mikes strong personality and QB coaching style. The difference between Flynn and Wilson was so obvious Mike would have seen it easily.

Holmgren admitted on 950 KJR he would never have drafted Russell Wilson. He thought it was a mistake to take him.

Except in my discussion Holmgren is not the GM but just the Head Coach. Schieder would have taken him he liked him that much.
 

T-Hawk

New member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
98
Reaction score
1
I don't remember Wallace getting a whole lot of chances to compete for a starting job. I remember a banged up Hass playing over Wallace and a chunk of the fan base calling for Wallace to start, but the only time he started was when Hass was too hurt to play.

Flynn would've been a poor man's Hasselbeck in Holmgren's WC offense, and that would be enough to keep the job. The difference between him and a rookie RW wouldn't be as obvious because there wouldn't be the improvisation, and there wouldn't be as many deep shots to show off the difference in arm talent.
 

scutterhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
9,826
Reaction score
1,797
Fade":3q95kr4s said:
chris98251":3q95kr4s said:
People say that Wilson would not have been drafted or given a chance with Holmgren, just one name Seneca Wallace, he was given a lot of chances, and if Wilson performed how he performed his first pre season before I think we would have seen him start. The real Key is how would Wilson react to a more volatile coach? Would he rise up with more fire or crumble beneath Mikes strong personality and QB coaching style. The difference between Flynn and Wilson was so obvious Mike would have seen it easily.

No. Mike would've cut his young outstanding & cheap defense, and kept RW on the bench behind Flynn for eternity. /s

LMAO.

It may be hard for some to accept, but Holmgren would've been amazing with John Schneider & Russell Wilson.

John Schneider being his Ron Wolf, and Russell Wilson being his Brett Favre. With a young cheap defense.

HOLMGREN would win a lot of games with that group, and at least a couple of Superbowls, if not more.

Nope, Holmgren has already admitted that he wouldn't have allowed Russell Wilson to be Drafted, as he was too short, and his scrambling (like Bret Favre) would have set off alarms, so he'd have told Schneider not only no, but hell no.
 

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
25,560
Reaction score
7,617
NJlargent":3cyw5v59 said:
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 no SB's and having your GM duties stripped because of your incompetence drafting and managing the cap/franchise tags?
 

Rat

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
9,494
Reaction score
3,755
Location
Grand Rapids, MI
I don't think Schneider takes the Seahawks job if Holmgren is still here anyway.
 

scutterhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
9,826
Reaction score
1,797
chris98251":fwb5pwa3 said:
Maulbert":fwb5pwa3 said:
chris98251":fwb5pwa3 said:
People say that Wilson would not have been drafted or given a chance with Holmgren, just one name Seneca Wallace, he was given a lot of chances, and if Wilson performed how he performed his first pre season before I think we would have seen him start. The real Key is how would Wilson react to a more volatile coach? Would he rise up with more fire or crumble beneath Mikes strong personality and QB coaching style. The difference between Flynn and Wilson was so obvious Mike would have seen it easily.

Holmgren admitted on 950 KJR he would never have drafted Russell Wilson. He thought it was a mistake to take him.

Except in my discussion Holmgren is not the GM but just the Head Coach. Schieder would have taken him he liked him that much.
I usually agree with your well thought out posts, but I doubt like hell Holmgren would have allowed Schneider to mess with Quarterbacks decisions.
Any other position?, Schneider might have been given a lot more leeway, but Mike would have told him to take someone like Cousins.
IF Holmgren would have come onto the scene with Russell Wilson as the Rookie in Pre-Season, Holmgren would have had a shit-fit watching Wilson running around like he did.
Seneca Wallace was relegated to backup, the shorter Russell Wilson would have followed suit, and the Green Bay backup- Quarterback Flynn would have been given the reins, just as the Green Bay backup Quarterback Hasselbeck was.
 

jeremiah

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
931
Reaction score
384
MontanaHawk05":2kuhm3dc said:
Fade":2kuhm3dc said:
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.


Holmgren wasn't mad at Matt for his improvisation, he was mad because Hasselbeck BELIEVED he was athletic, but he wasn't. He had fairly nimble feet, but was very slow of foot. His first time watching RW doing his twisting, twirling escape act, he would have been yelling onto the field, then he repeats what it looked like when Favre did similar things.
 

chris98251

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Messages
40,160
Reaction score
2,398
Location
Roy Wa.
So your saying Holmgren would have treated Wilson like Flutie, even if he lit up everything in pre season and Flynn looked out of his element as he did.

That doesn't even bring into argument the play in practice where Wilson was out performing everyone, Wilson also may have been able to get Koren Robinson the ball which Hass could not do regularly, Holmgren had deep ball plays but not the arm to execute them, if we switch time frames Holmgren had a way of using the deep ball, Antonio Freeman, Sterling Sharp, Robert Brooks come to mind in Green bay when he had Farve that could get it there.

So it wasn't that Holmgren didn't have a deep game, he just didn't have one with Hass as his QB knowing his limitations.
 

purpleneer

New member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
331
Reaction score
1
Location
The Green Lantern (almost)
chris98251":bat5idre said:
So your saying Holmgren would have treated Wilson like Flutie, even if he lit up everything in pre season and Flynn looked out of his element as he did.

That doesn't even bring into argument the play in practice where Wilson was out performing everyone, Wilson also may have been able to get Koren Robinson the ball which Hass could not do regularly, Holmgren had deep ball plays but not the arm to execute them, if we switch time frames Holmgren had a way of using the deep ball, Antonio Freeman, Sterling Sharp, Robert Brooks come to mind in Green bay when he had Farve that could get it there.

So it wasn't that Holmgren didn't have a deep game, he just didn't have one with Hass as his QB knowing his limitations.
I definitely remember that it took quite a while to get Hasselbeck and the offense going and a whole lot of "we're close" from Holmgren through those early struggles. He's right up there for stubbornness about doing it his way and he would have forced any GM's hand about QB acquisition.
 

purpleneer

New member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
331
Reaction score
1
Location
The Green Lantern (almost)
Jerhawk":39x5rc8i said:
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.
I think you memory is a bit tainted here. Look at what he inherited; a team for whom back-to-back 8-8 seasons was underachieving. Compare it to the dumpster fire that was the transition of Holmgren's descent to the Mora season and the anchor of Curry's contract. And let's not pretend Holmgren didn't set up the team into making the Mora debacle with his retirement talk.
 

purpleneer

New member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
331
Reaction score
1
Location
The Green Lantern (almost)
KiwiHawk":2ceeqqie said:
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.
Whatever created the TE need, it existed. He went into the draft needing a starter there, had a preference (Graham), and missed him by trading down. And I won't say it's certain we don't draft Reed, but it's certainly wishful to assume we do and his career is as good on a team built extremely differently than those Ravens.
The Galloway part is true; he got lucky *allas gave that gift for the name, but he also didn't exactly take full advantage of the abundance of good first round picks.
I also doubt he ever would have truly allowed any sort of "defense-first" team building. Losing Shurmur hurt, but thinking he puts a bunch of resources to the D and makes a successful or even decent O on the cheap seems fantastical.
 

jammerhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
10,588
Reaction score
2,204
Two very different personalities and coaching styles.

It's almost like picking different flavours as both are very capable coaches with some blind spots.

Holmgren is a 'my way or the highway' coach that is very weak in terms of defence but a guru as a offensive minded coach. Pete is a more inclusive collectivist style coach who is a guru defensively and not as strong offensively. Pete is better at assessing talent than Holmgren was. Both have blind spots and both have a history of being too loyal to a fault to their assistant coaches and coordinators. Pete's rah rah style may wear itself out with some mature players but his faithfulness to several demonstrably uncompetitive assistants while speaking and preaching Always Compete

Pete remained faithful to Cable and Bevell well past the time when it was obvious to observers that they both should have been dismissed from their respective jobs for failure to meet stated objectives. Holmgren struggled find DC's who were competent beyond Fritz Shurmur and he undervalued defence in his structuring of the team and paid for it in XL when his starters got hurt.

My personal preference is Pete's style and while he has had blind spots and is weak offensively he builds a better nd deeper team than Holmgren did or could. With Holmgren you could call plays reliably based upon down and distance somewhat similarly to Bevell so the execution of the play which was Holmgren's strong suit made a difference. Pete at least has capable views on running the O but defers to those who are better than him b/c he is better a defence than offence.

It's a personal preference thing but I'd disagree with any notion that Holmgren would have won more than 1 Lombardi with Pete's roster b/c he'd have blown it up. At any rate this is a speculative question incapable of being answered except based upon personal preference.
 

scutterhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
9,826
Reaction score
1,797
chris98251":3acnfit8 said:
So your saying Holmgren would have treated Wilson like Flutie, even if he lit up everything in pre season and Flynn looked out of his element as he did.

That doesn't even bring into argument the play in practice where Wilson was out performing everyone, Wilson also may have been able to get Koren Robinson the ball which Hass could not do regularly, Holmgren had deep ball plays but not the arm to execute them, if we switch time frames Holmgren had a way of using the deep ball, Antonio Freeman, Sterling Sharp, Robert Brooks come to mind in Green bay when he had Farve that could get it there.

So it wasn't that Holmgren didn't have a deep game, he just didn't have one with Hass as his QB knowing his limitations.

Holmgren had preconceived ideas as to what measurables that he expected to see in his ideal Quarterbacks, AND, they were expected to absorb HIS very strict & detailed Coaching.
If forced to try Wilson, he would have insisted on him doing things HIS WAY....Wilson (like Favre) would have had Holmgren doing a melt-down, & blowing fuses.
Hell, even Hasselbeck got his ass chewed out, and sidelined in favor of playing Trent Dilfer for quite awhile.
Holmgren wanted a short leash on his Quarterbacks, and too, Holmy would have sacrificed Pete's costly Defense to building his ideal O-Line.
Holmgren Offense = $$$$$$ because that where his expertise lies
Carroll Defense = $$$$$$ because he believes that "Defenses win Championships"
 

KiwiHawk

New member
Joined
May 4, 2009
Messages
4,203
Reaction score
1
Location
Auckland, New Zealand
purpleneer":15hyavso said:
KiwiHawk":15hyavso said:
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.
Whatever created the TE need, it existed. He went into the draft needing a starter there, had a preference (Graham), and missed him by trading down. And I won't say it's certain we don't draft Reed, but it's certainly wishful to assume we do and his career is as good on a team built extremely differently than those Ravens.
The Galloway part is true; he got lucky *allas gave that gift for the name, but he also didn't exactly take full advantage of the abundance of good first round picks.
I also doubt he ever would have truly allowed any sort of "defense-first" team building. Losing Shurmur hurt, but thinking he puts a bunch of resources to the D and makes a successful or even decent O on the cheap seems fantastical.
Actually the TE in that draft was Shockey, and with him gone, Daniel Graham and Jerramy Stevens were a coin flip so it wasn't worth standing pat since one would be available if we traded down. For what it's worth they had similar careers as well, which proves the coin flip but also shows neither were worthy of a first-round selection.

It's wishful thinking about Ed Reed, although I called it at the time because Reed was the reason for the success of Buchanan and Rumph (Miami's corners) who were also taken in the first. As we know, having an Earl Thomas can make your cornerbacks look amazing. Take them out of Seattle (Browner, Maxwell, etc.) and they don't look as good.

I disagree about the first round picks from the Galloway trade. While one of them eventually became Koren Robinson, who I grant was a sputter at best, the other one was Shaun Alexander who became Seattle's only league MVP.

The guys we took with our regular picks, though one was a trade via Green Bay, were Chris McIntosh (neck injury kiled his career, so difficult to determine what sort of a pro he could have been), and Steve Hutchinson who is one of the best guards ever to play the game.

So we weren't exactly bad at first-round picks (on the offensive side of the ball anyway).
 
Top