Pete or Holmgren

[pittpnthrs]

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

Agreed and that says it all. I never worried about Holmgren being outcoached. I do with Pete.

This makes no sense.

Holmgren had complete control over the roster for three years...........until Allen didn't trust him anymore and he had his GM duties stripped.

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.

This isn't even close, this league is about Lombardi's, and only one coach got us one. If you want to debate who's a better overall X's and O's coach, motivator, player manager? I'm down, that's a good discussion.

But "better?" Better is winning. The End.

Nobody is talking about GM duties here,,,,why are you? We are talking about coaching. The X's and O's. You also want to talk about Lombardi's, but never mention that Holmgren and Pete both hoisted one, but Holmgren went to the dance one more time than Carroll.

If the 2013 team played the 2005 team, the 2013 would destroy them because they were flat out more talented and better. Give each coach the same team and talent and i'm taking Holmgren all day long, every day.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Nobody is talking about GM duties here,,,,why are you? We are talking about coaching. The X's and O's. You also want to talk about Lombardi's, but never mention that Holmgren and Pete both hoisted one, but Holmgren went to the dance one more time than Carroll.

The question was "better Seahawk coach," not "better Seahawk coach that won a Lombardi with another team."

And losing two SB's instead of one isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for Holmgren winning this discussion.

Again, better SEAHAWK coach, and only one hoisted a Lombardi here. So you don't even need to get into any other tangible or intangible topics of discussion, it's Pete.

I don't even see how this is a valid question, but if you do, god speed. Because even taking away the SB's discussion, IMO Pete is a far more philisophically innovative coach than Holmgren ever was.

 

[mrt144]

I think my problem is that I can only really see the flaws of Pete and was too drunk to remember the flaws of Holmgren.

Pete does bring a lot of good to the table but I don't think I'll ever be 'over' him sticking with Bevell and Cable 2 or 3 seasons too long. "Bout time you caught up Pete, wondering if you'd ever make it to the obvious".

 

[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.

 

[mrt144]

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

Agreed and that says it all. I never worried about Holmgren being outcoached. I do with Pete.

This makes no sense.

Holmgren had complete control over the roster for three years...........until Allen didn't trust him anymore and he had his GM duties stripped.

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.

This isn't even close, this league is about Lombardi's, and only one coach got us one. If you want to debate who's a better overall X's and O's coach, motivator, player manager? I'm down, that's a good discussion.

But "better?" Better is winning. The End.

Nobody is talking about GM duties here,,,,why are you? We are talking about coaching. The X's and O's. You also want to talk about Lombardi's, but never mention that Holmgren and Pete both hoisted one, but Holmgren went to the dance one more time than Carroll.

If the 2013 team played the 2005 team, the 2013 would destroy them because they were flat out more talented and better. Give each coach the same team and talent and i'm taking Holmgren all day long, every day.

I was going to do a run down of what makes a coach but it's a long list. X's and O's (tactics) is one element, a very important one but it isn't the end all be all. I think about various coaches around the NFL that have a fatal flaw that keeps them in the good, not great category. Pete has his flaws and they're really annoying but...he has strengths that are seemingly unique to the NFL or at the very least rare enough to say he has it - mostly with personnel from the ground up.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

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.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Part of being a good coach is getting the most out of the players you have. Pete is one of the best we've ever seen at that.

 

[mrt144]

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.

Holmgren did different with different. That's about all I can see as close to the truth. The change in overarching strategy is so big here that it's hard to imagine what one would do with the other. And the offense wasn't nearly as hapless in the 16 and 17 seasons as the 12 13 and 14 seasons even if it didn't meet the lofty bar that Holmgren had. Yes, shame on Pete for being a stubborn fool and hanging with his coaches longer than he should have but...

It's not like the team under Pete has been totally bereft of offense the entire time he's been here.

 

[SpokaneHawks]

Holmgren, is that you? LOL, this isnt even debatable. Pete has had more success, put together a better team, and game planned much better in the big games. Pete's teams are ready and always have a chance. I didnt feel that way against Pittsburgh. The real question is how long would it have taken Holmgren to destroy Russell's game and try to turn him into a "NFL" quarterback? Pete celebrates the individual talents of his team and that let's them excel.

 

[hawknation2018]

Nobody is talking about GM duties here,,,,why are you? We are talking about coaching. The X's and O's. You also want to talk about Lombardi's, but never mention that Holmgren and Pete both hoisted one, but Holmgren went to the dance one more time than Carroll.

If the 2013 team played the 2005 team, the 2013 would destroy them because they were flat out more talented and better. Give each coach the same team and talent and i'm taking Holmgren all day long, every day.

Talent evaluation is a major aspect of coaching.

If Holmgren started Matt Flynn over a rookie or 2nd year Russell Wilson, I’m not sure how those 2012 or 2013 Seahawks teams would have been more effective than what Carroll accomplished. They certainly would have been worse defensively without Carroll’s coaching.

It’s really such a ridiculous hypothetical, I’m not sure whey it’s even being entertained. You want Carroll/Schneider to construct and architect those teams, and then turn the reigns over to a coach who never would have assembled that talent in the first place.

 

[mrt144]

Nobody is talking about GM duties here,,,,why are you? We are talking about coaching. The X's and O's. You also want to talk about Lombardi's, but never mention that Holmgren and Pete both hoisted one, but Holmgren went to the dance one more time than Carroll.

If the 2013 team played the 2005 team, the 2013 would destroy them because they were flat out more talented and better. Give each coach the same team and talent and i'm taking Holmgren all day long, every day.

Talent evaluation is a major aspect of coaching.

If Holmgren started Matt Flynn over a rookie or 2nd year Russell Wilson, I’m not sure how those 2012 or 2013 Seahawks teams would have been more effective than what Carroll accomplished. They certainly would have been worse defensively without Carroll’s coaching.

It’s really such a ridiculous hypothetical, I’m not sure whey it’s even being entertained. You want Carroll/Schneider to construct and architect those teams, and then turn the reigns over to a coach who never would have assembled that talent in the first place.

It's not always that crazy - Urban Meyer and Jim Tressel both won NCs the 2nd year of their tenure at Ohio State. Yes, Ohio State has a lot of institutional power and pull that keeps the floor from ever getting too low but sometimes having a ton of questions already answered makes the job of getting the best out of them a tad bit easier. I don't think it would go well in the scenario presented but it's not always that absurd.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

You want Carroll/Schneider to construct and architect those teams, and then turn the reigns over to a coach who never would have assembled that talent in the first place.

Bingo

 

[MontanaHawk05]

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

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.

Fortunately, that was only 2017. Teams don't win Super Bowls with the construction you're suggesting.

 

[Chapow]

You want Carroll/Schneider to construct and architect those teams, and then turn the reigns over to a coach who never would have assembled that talent in the first place.

Bingo

And even in the fantasy land where Holmgren does come in and take over the team that PC/JS built, does that same group of players still become one of the best defenses in NFL history without Pete's tutelage? Because I highly doubt it.

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.

We had the #1 scoring D in the NFL in 2012. Dan Quinn became our DC in 2013. Dan Quinn took a over a defense that was already the best in the league.

 

[AROS]

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.

That is scary accurate. SO true.

 

[Tical21]

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.

 

[fenderbender123]

I never really liked Holmgren. I don't know why. I feel like his teams were a bit soft, especially on defense. Too finesse on offense.

I was never a big Hasselbeck fan, either. He always seemed so mad all the time. When I think of him, I think of him slamming his hands down on the field when somebody dropped a pass in a playoff game against Green Bay I think. Never did like that.

Then again, the uniforms were so god awful ugly during that time too. The numbers were cool looking, but the colors and scheme were awful. Just totally bland and drab. Depressing looking. There were a lot of little things I didn't like about the team during his tenure, many of which weren't really Holmgren's fault, but hey he was the coach at the time so it all factors in. Sorry Holmgren. (PS, I don't hate the guy and I always rooted for him and loved that we went to a super bowl).

Pete likes his football teams the same way I like mine. Run the ball. Smack em in the mouth. Make the defense the stronger side of the ball. Soooo much better. And yeah, he's won more games and brought us our first Lombardi trophy, so not much more needs to be said.

Holmgren would be a good offensive coordinator. But Pete is a builder of championship football teams. A true head coach.

 

[purpleneer]

Nowhere but Seattle would someone be so revered for accomplishing so little as Holmgren did. 10 years, one time being close. Came into a much better situation than people think and much better than Pete did, took 5 years to be more than one game better than what got Erickson fired (in fact losing record through 4 seasons and worse than Erickson's combined record), no playoff wins through 6, 23-25 in three years after SB loss. I sure remember some blown leads because he was ok with 3-and-outs despite having offense as the team's strength.
People think Carroll's teams underachieved more than Holmgren's did? Wow.

 

[Hawknight]

Simple question: Who was the better Seahawks coach?

Honestly, I'm having a tough time figuring it out.

I think a Superbowl win speaks volumes here on Pete's behalf. :greetingsearthling:

Lot's of respect for Holmgren though!

 

[Fade]

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.