Holmgren
- Thread starter LTH
- Start date
kidhawk
Well-known member
Everyone is welcome to their own opinion, but he took us from the doldrums to the Super Bowl for the first time in franchise history. I'll always respect him for that.
I don't think money was the issue. More about control, and how Ruskell was ruining the team by picking players Holmie didn't like/didn't think fit. There was, unfortunately, a lot of dysfunction in that FO.LTH":14w77g91 said:
Seanhawk
New member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2009
- Messages
- 6,819
- Reaction score
- 0
sutz":1z1dt4ja said:
Unfortunately? I would argue fortunately.
Hawkfan77
Active member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2011
- Messages
- 3,280
- Reaction score
- 0
Where did that come from? Holmgren never turned the Hawks down for Cleveland, thats a complete lieLTH":1d4c30x3 said:
I have a ton of respect for him.
At the time he brought HOPE for our future. I think he did a great job with what he had to work with.
He wasn't perfect, nobody is.
At the time he brought HOPE for our future. I think he did a great job with what he had to work with.
He wasn't perfect, nobody is.
Largent80
New member
Holmy is awesome....Love the dude.
Im thankful for Holmgren making us relevant but in the grand scheme his tenure was a let down. He stuck with a quarterback that was never going to get it done on the big stage. I get it, before some of you chime in, that Matt shouldve won Superbowl XL but the fact of the matter is that we didnt. Im still chapped but fact is that Mike rested on his laurels and it wasnt good enough. I do have absolute respect for him though even if this post doesnt seem like it. If Vinnys helmet doesnt score a touchdown Holmgren most likely never becomes the Seahawks coach. Its incredible to look back at the chain of events that brought us to this moment in Seahawks history.
Northhawk
Member
It took Holmie a while to get us to the SB but I always respected and admired him for getting us there.
I thought he was basically pushed out after they took away his authority over player personnel. Like Pete, he wanted to pick his people for his system but he-who-shall-go-unnamed took it away and started installing his high character, big school approach. Not that Holmie was as successful as Pete but that's what it appeared he wanted.
I thought he was basically pushed out after they took away his authority over player personnel. Like Pete, he wanted to pick his people for his system but he-who-shall-go-unnamed took it away and started installing his high character, big school approach. Not that Holmie was as successful as Pete but that's what it appeared he wanted.
volsunghawk
New member
kidhawk":30dbxrk6 said:
This. I'll be forever thankful for the attention and success he brought the team. There were a lot of things I didn't like about Holmgren (hated him as a GM and didn't much like the way he built the team), but considering where this team was before he showed up, I'm glad he came here when he did (though I'm also glad he moved on when he did).
kidhawk
Well-known member
LTH":3imo1slx said:
He took a year off, then was offered a possibility to return to Seattle, but not in the type of role which he wanted, so he took the Cleveland job. It was about the job not the money. His main issue in his time here was that he wanted more control. We didn't give that to him and Cleveland did.
I thought he voluntarily left because Ruskell was making stupid decision he didn't agree with. He could see the writing on the wall and left. I think he did missionary work for a couple years and then came to Cleveland. At that time we were in the middle of the Mora catastrophe and I don't think we were interested in hiring him anyway.LTH":skoodnrr said:
12thManNorth
New member
I like him, but wasn't impressed by the lengthy interview he did with Green Bay reporters before the NFCCG in the best way(s) to attack and beat Seattle. He can do what he wants of course, but coulda done without it
seahawksny
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2013
- Messages
- 1,611
- Reaction score
- 5
Love him
took us from crap to super bowl
his play calling got very consercative at end, but he had very little to work with at time
took us from crap to super bowl
his play calling got very consercative at end, but he had very little to work with at time
kidhawk
Well-known member
LTH":1dyjlx2h said:
so basically your theory is anecdotal evidence > factual evidence
That is your right to believe it. Does't make it true
Attyla the Hawk
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2013
- Messages
- 2,559
- Reaction score
- 47
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.
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.
kidhawk
Well-known member
LTH":3gu0a6i5 said:
That is a totally different situation. Players are jockeying for the same job on different teams, so money is the biggest factor. Holmgren's situation was that he wanted a GM job and Seattle didn't offer that. Cleveland did.
Similar threads
