Seahawks.NET AMAZON STOREFRONT

Pete or Holmgren

The Essential Online Seattle Football Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
Re: Pete or Holmgren
Thu Aug 30, 2018 12:00 pm
  • Fade wrote:Give Mike Holmgren John Schneider.

    Give Pete Carroll Tim Ruskell.


    It's like trying to debate people about QBs. 1 has the great O-Line, the other has a dumpster fire. The QB with the great O-Line has slightly better numbers than the QB who has copped liver, but if the shoe was on the other foot it wouldn't even be close.

    And again, Pete wouldn't work with Tim Ruskell.

    You're trying to create scenarios that have never existed to prove a point that can't be proven.
    Help bring peace to the South LA / Puget Sound communities. Are you in?
    http://www.abetterla.org | http://www.abetterseattle.com
    User avatar
    sc85sis
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6757
    Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:40 am
    Location: Southern CA


Re: Pete or Holmgre
Thu Aug 30, 2018 12:42 pm
  • Greatest Seahawks Coach Math

    Championships
    1 > 0

    Conference Titles
    2 > 1

    Playoff victories
    9 > 4

    Most-consecutive seasons with playoff victories
    5 > 3

    Playoff winning %
    64% > 40%

    Regular season winning %
    62% > 54%

    Most-consecutive games without losing by more than 7 points
    65 (NFL record) > 17

    Most-consecutive games without losing by more than 10 points
    95 (NFL record) > 17

    Years leading NFL in scoring offense or defense
    4 > 1
    User avatar
    hawknation2018
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2244
    Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 1:04 pm


Re: Pete or Holmgren
Thu Aug 30, 2018 12:43 pm
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    KiwiHawk wrote:I doubt that - Ruskell obviously didn't value Hutchinson very highly or he would have kept him. Unlikely he'd draft him in the first round if he didn't value him.


    Hutch was the best guard in football at the time.

    It's not that Ruskell didn't value him, it's that he got punked by the Vikings on the transitional tag. He thought he could use the transitional tag and save $600,000 by not using the franchise tag because he didn't understand the language at the time with the transitional tag.............thus the whole poison pill debacle.

    That's just it - he went cheap on Hutchinson and downgraded the franchise tag to the transition tag, which made Hutchinson feel betrayed. The Vikings were merely the beneficiary of Hutchinson being pissed off at the Seahawks for not honouring their word.

    You don't sign the best guard in football by going cheap. But Hutchinson was "just a guard" so Ruskell didn't value him that highly.
    User avatar
    KiwiHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2101
    Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 3:22 pm
    Location: Auckland, New Zealand


Re: Pete or Holmgren
Thu Aug 30, 2018 12:56 pm
  • KiwiHawk wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    KiwiHawk wrote:I doubt that - Ruskell obviously didn't value Hutchinson very highly or he would have kept him. Unlikely he'd draft him in the first round if he didn't value him.


    Hutch was the best guard in football at the time.

    It's not that Ruskell didn't value him, it's that he got punked by the Vikings on the transitional tag. He thought he could use the transitional tag and save $600,000 by not using the franchise tag because he didn't understand the language at the time with the transitional tag.............thus the whole poison pill debacle.

    That's just it - he went cheap on Hutchinson and downgraded the franchise tag to the transition tag, which made Hutchinson feel betrayed. The Vikings were merely the beneficiary of Hutchinson being pissed off at the Seahawks for not honouring their word.

    You don't sign the best guard in football by going cheap. But Hutchinson was "just a guard" so Ruskell didn't value him that highly.


    I agree.

    I'm all for being shrewd and trying to leverage the best contract for your team...............WHEN you have the leverage and understand all the ins and outs of the scenarios.

    There's a reason the only job Ruskell could find after leaving here was a scout for the Titans. He was in over his head here from day one, the Hutch debacle was just the biggest.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13308
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: Pete or Holmgre
Thu Aug 30, 2018 12:57 pm
  • hawknation2018 wrote:Greatest Seahawks Coach Math

    Championships
    1 > 0

    Conference Titles
    2 > 1

    Playoff victories
    9 > 4

    Most-consecutive seasons with playoff victories
    5 > 3

    Playoff winning %
    64% > 40%

    Regular season winning %
    62% > 54%

    Most-consecutive games without losing by more than 7 points
    65 (NFL record) > 17

    Most-consecutive games without losing by more than 10 points
    95 (NFL record) > 17

    Years leading NFL in scoring offense or defense
    4 > 1


    Talent level & Dan Quinn skew those numbers drastically.

    Without Dan Quinn Pete's Entire NFL Career, not just the Seahawks.

    = Championships = 0

    = Conference Titles = 0

    Dan Quinn immediately took the Falcons to the Superbowl after he left. Pete benefited from that.

    Dan Quinn & Russell Wilson have totally distorted people's view of Pete Carroll.


    Mike Holmgren's Entire NFL Career, not just the Seahawks.

    Championships = 1 (2)

    Conference Titles = 3
    User avatar
    Fade
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1671
    Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:26 am
    Location: Truth Ray


Re: Pete or Holmgre
Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:25 pm
  • Fade wrote:
    hawknation2018 wrote:Greatest Seahawks Coach Math

    Championships
    1 > 0

    Conference Titles
    2 > 1

    Playoff victories
    9 > 4

    Most-consecutive seasons with playoff victories
    5 > 3

    Playoff winning %
    64% > 40%

    Regular season winning %
    62% > 54%

    Most-consecutive games without losing by more than 7 points
    65 (NFL record) > 17

    Most-consecutive games without losing by more than 10 points
    95 (NFL record) > 17

    Years leading NFL in scoring offense or defense
    4 > 1


    Talent level & Dan Quinn skew those numbers drastically.

    Without Dan Quinn Pete's Entire NFL Career, not just the Seahawks.

    = Championships = 0

    = Conference Titles = 0

    Dan Quinn immediately took the Falcons to the Superbowl after he left. Pete benefited from that.

    Dan Quinn & Russell Wilson have totally distorted people's view of Pete Carroll.


    Mike Holmgren's Entire NFL Career, not just the Seahawks.

    Championships = 1 (2)

    Conference Titles = 3


    And Mike Holmgren is out of the League. Pete isn't yet.

    Wasn't it Pete who hired Dan Quinn in as DC? That was certainly a good head coaching move, right?

    See, if all you're asking for is offensive X and O talent, I doubt there's any question that Holmgren wins that. The rest? Not so much.
    ____________
    BLUE and GREEN...
    User avatar
    Ad Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1850
    Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 8:25 am


Re: Pete or Holmgre
Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:26 pm
  • Ad Hawk wrote:
    Fade wrote:
    hawknation2018 wrote:Greatest Seahawks Coach Math

    Championships
    1 > 0

    Conference Titles
    2 > 1

    Playoff victories
    9 > 4

    Most-consecutive seasons with playoff victories
    5 > 3

    Playoff winning %
    64% > 40%

    Regular season winning %
    62% > 54%

    Most-consecutive games without losing by more than 7 points
    65 (NFL record) > 17

    Most-consecutive games without losing by more than 10 points
    95 (NFL record) > 17

    Years leading NFL in scoring offense or defense
    4 > 1


    Talent level & Dan Quinn skew those numbers drastically.

    Without Dan Quinn Pete's Entire NFL Career, not just the Seahawks.

    = Championships = 0

    = Conference Titles = 0

    Dan Quinn immediately took the Falcons to the Superbowl after he left. Pete benefited from that.

    Dan Quinn & Russell Wilson have totally distorted people's view of Pete Carroll.


    Mike Holmgren's Entire NFL Career, not just the Seahawks.

    Championships = 1 (2)

    Conference Titles = 3


    And Mike Holmgren is out of the League. Pete isn't yet.

    Wasn't it Pete who hired Dan Quinn in as DC? That was certainly a good head coaching move, right?

    See, if all you're asking for is offensive X and O talent, I doubt there's any question that Holmgren wins that. The rest? Not so much.


    Being a great tactitian doesn't make you a great coach. Plenty of great tacticians wind up as perma coordinators.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3057
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


Re: Pete or Holmgre
Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:29 pm
  • Fade wrote:
    hawknation2018 wrote:Greatest Seahawks Coach Math

    Championships
    1 > 0

    Conference Titles
    2 > 1

    Playoff victories
    9 > 4

    Most-consecutive seasons with playoff victories
    5 > 3

    Playoff winning %
    64% > 40%

    Regular season winning %
    62% > 54%

    Most-consecutive games without losing by more than 7 points
    65 (NFL record) > 17

    Most-consecutive games without losing by more than 10 points
    95 (NFL record) > 17

    Years leading NFL in scoring offense or defense
    4 > 1


    Talent level & Dan Quinn skew those numbers drastically.

    Without Dan Quinn Pete's Entire NFL Career, not just the Seahawks.

    = Championships = 0

    = Conference Titles = 0

    Dan Quinn immediately took the Falcons to the Superbowl after he left. Pete benefited from that.

    Dan Quinn & Russell Wilson have totally distorted people's view of Pete Carroll.


    Mike Holmgren's Entire NFL Career, not just the Seahawks.

    Championships = 1 (2)

    Conference Titles = 3


    The first part of your post is pure conjecture. Carroll hired Quinn for a reason. Atlanta has had success imitating Carroll’s philosophy, though they haven’t won a Super Bowl. Just like Jacksonville and San Francisco are having some success imitating Carroll, among others. You can’t separate the players and coaches whom Carroll acquired, just like you can’t separate the players and coaches under Holmgren.

    Also, you’re separating out three injury-plagued seasons post-Quinn. The Seahawks finished #1 in scoring defense in 2015 without Quinn. The Seahawks were #1 in scoring defense in 2012 without Quinn. Carroll has had enormous influence on the way the game is played, which is something Holmgren never had.

    As for your 2nd argument, if you want to talk about pre-Seahawks coaching career (which is not really the discussion) then you would have to factor in Carroll’s incredible success in college football: consecutive national championships, seven-straight seasons with Top 4 finishes, and NCAA records for most-consecutive games without losing by more than 7 points and by 10 points. Carroll has had amazing successes at both levels, which is very rare.
    User avatar
    hawknation2018
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2244
    Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 1:04 pm


Re: Pete or Holmgre
Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:47 pm
  • Fade wrote:
    hawknation2018 wrote:Greatest Seahawks Coach Math

    Championships
    1 > 0

    Conference Titles
    2 > 1

    Playoff victories
    9 > 4

    Most-consecutive seasons with playoff victories
    5 > 3

    Playoff winning %
    64% > 40%

    Regular season winning %
    62% > 54%

    Most-consecutive games without losing by more than 7 points
    65 (NFL record) > 17

    Most-consecutive games without losing by more than 10 points
    95 (NFL record) > 17

    Years leading NFL in scoring offense or defense
    4 > 1


    Talent level & Dan Quinn skew those numbers drastically.

    Without Dan Quinn Pete's Entire NFL Career, not just the Seahawks.

    = Championships = 0

    = Conference Titles = 0

    Dan Quinn immediately took the Falcons to the Superbowl after he left. Pete benefited from that.

    Dan Quinn & Russell Wilson have totally distorted people's view of Pete Carroll.


    Mike Holmgren's Entire NFL Career, not just the Seahawks.

    Championships = 1 (2)

    Conference Titles = 3


    Pete hired Dan Quinn, so you're only helping the argument for Pete..........and the question was Best Hawk's Coach, so you can't include Holmgren's time in GB.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13308
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: Pete or Holmgre
Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:16 pm
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Pete hired Dan Quinn, so you're only helping the argument for Pete..........and the question was Best Hawk's Coach, so you can't include Holmgren's time in GB.


    What has Pete Carroll done without Dan Quinn as his DC?

    What he usually does. Underachieve.

    Dan Quinn in his short head coaching career has done more without Pete Carroll, than what Pete Carroll has done in his long HC career without Dan Quinn.
    User avatar
    Fade
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1671
    Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:26 am
    Location: Truth Ray


Re: Pete or Holmgre
Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:36 pm
  • Fade wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Pete hired Dan Quinn, so you're only helping the argument for Pete..........and the question was Best Hawk's Coach, so you can't include Holmgren's time in GB.


    What has Pete Carroll done without Dan Quinn as his DC?

    What he usually does. Underachieve.

    Dan Quinn in his short head coaching career has done more without Pete Carroll, than what Pete Carroll has done in his long HC career without Dan Quinn.


    That’s an incredibly small sample size. And it’s a red herring that distracts from the principal argument, which is whether Carroll or Holmgren was the better Seahawks HC. Clearly, Carroll was when you look at the objective facts.

    The Seahawks led the NFL in scoring defense in 2015 without Quinn, just like they led the NFL in scoring defense in 2012 without Quinn.

    Since 2015 (again, a small and arbitrary sample size that distracts from the real conversation), Carroll and Quinn have each made the playoffs twice, and Carroll has the slightly better winning percentage during that time frame. Atlanta regressed last season too, as the offense that led them to the Super Bowl fell off. The big difference is Carroll fired his underperforming OC, which should help improve the offense, while Quinn chose to keep Sarkisian this year.
    User avatar
    hawknation2018
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2244
    Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 1:04 pm


Re: Pete or Holmgre
Thu Aug 30, 2018 4:00 pm
  • hawknation2018 wrote:
    Fade wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Pete hired Dan Quinn, so you're only helping the argument for Pete..........and the question was Best Hawk's Coach, so you can't include Holmgren's time in GB.


    What has Pete Carroll done without Dan Quinn as his DC?

    What he usually does. Underachieve.

    Dan Quinn in his short head coaching career has done more without Pete Carroll, than what Pete Carroll has done in his long HC career without Dan Quinn.


    That’s an incredibly small sample size. And it’s a red herring that distracts from the principal argument, which is whether Carroll or Holmgren was the better Seahawks HC. Clearly, Carroll was when you look at the objective facts.

    The Seahawks led the NFL in scoring defense in 2015 without Quinn, just like they led the NFL in scoring defense in 2012 without Quinn.

    Since 2015 (again, a small and arbitrary sample size that distracts from the real conversation), Carroll and Quinn have each made the playoffs twice, and Carroll has the slightly better winning percentage during that time frame. Atlanta regressed last season too, as the offense that led them to the Super Bowl fell off. The big difference is Carroll fired his underperforming OC, which should help improve the offense, while Quinn chose to keep Sarkisian this year.


    This (emphasis mine).

    We had the #1 scoring D in the NFL in 2012.
    Dan Quinn became our DC in 2013.
    Dan Quinn was hired by Pete Carroll to run the defense that was already the best in the league before he (Quinn) got here.
    And yet Dan Quinn gets all the credit and Pete gets none? That actually makes sense to you?
    User avatar
    Chapow
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2631
    Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:38 pm


Re: Pete or Holmgre
Thu Aug 30, 2018 4:11 pm
  • hawknation2018 wrote:
    Fade wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Pete hired Dan Quinn, so you're only helping the argument for Pete..........and the question was Best Hawk's Coach, so you can't include Holmgren's time in GB.


    What has Pete Carroll done without Dan Quinn as his DC?

    What he usually does. Underachieve.

    Dan Quinn in his short head coaching career has done more without Pete Carroll, than what Pete Carroll has done in his long HC career without Dan Quinn.


    That’s an incredibly small sample size. And it’s a red herring that distracts from the principal argument, which is whether Carroll or Holmgren was the better Seahawks HC. Clearly, Carroll was when you look at the objective facts.

    The Seahawks led the NFL in scoring defense in 2015 without Quinn, just like they led the NFL in scoring defense in 2012 without Quinn.

    Since 2015 (again, a small and arbitrary sample size that distracts from the real conversation), Carroll and Quinn have each made the playoffs twice, and Carroll has the slightly better winning percentage during that time frame. Atlanta regressed last season too, as the offense that led them to the Super Bowl fell off. The big difference is Carroll fired his underperforming OC, which should help improve the offense, while Quinn chose to keep Sarkisian this year.


    Led in Scoring Defense, loaded roster (#1 in DVOA) and couldn't make it to the NFC Championship Game on those years. Underachieved.

    Since your crediting Carroll with hiring Dan Quinn. You must also credit him for keeping CaBevell around all those years, losing the locker room, and destroying his would be dynasty. Pete had to blow the damn thing up because he had lost control. I am sorry, but Holmgren would've handled it much better. Pete is on some Jeff Fisher 7-9 BS. The difference is he has Russell Wilson to get him to 9-7, 10-6.

    Regardless of the smaller sample size Quinn has made a Superbowl and an NFC Championship Game without Carroll. Pete hasn't without Quinn despite fielding the best team in football multiplie years, he can't make an NFC Championship game without Dan Quinn.

    Dan Quinn > Pete Carroll

    Mike Holmgren > Dan Quinn > Pete Carroll
    User avatar
    Fade
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1671
    Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:26 am
    Location: Truth Ray


Re: Pete or Holmgren
Thu Aug 30, 2018 4:14 pm
  • chris98251 wrote:Let's try this then. If Pete took over the 2004 team does he win a Super bowl and if Mike took over the 2013 team would he keep Wilson and win a Super bowl.

    Pete would have been very displeased with Holmgren's Defense, so, the same refitting would apply to BOTH Coaches.
    Pete would let someone else run his Offense, with one major stipulation....TAKE CARE OF THE BALL he would then retool the Defense, ESPECIALLY the Secondary, because that is his strength.
    Would Holmgren keep Wilson?, maybe, but he would be relegated to backup, and he would try and find himself a Steve Young clone, a WCO Quarterback prospect to nurture, because that is his strength, now, IF Holmgren came in AFTER the 2013 season, and AFTER witnessing Russell Wilson's rise to stardom, he'd probably re-design the Offense to accommodate for his style of play, but NOT during the beginning stages of the 2013 Season.
    2013 was the year that RW had established himself as a top tier Quarterback.
    I get where y'all are trying to pair Holmgren's Offensive moxie with Pete's all world Defense....The ALL WORLD Defense that Pete built.
    Oh and, NO ONE was going to defeat the Stealers in the Jerome Bettis Bowl, not even Pete.
    Holmgren & the Seahawks got dry-hosed in that game.
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6498
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm


Re: Pete or Holmgre
Thu Aug 30, 2018 4:49 pm
  • Fade wrote:
    hawknation2018 wrote:
    Fade wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Pete hired Dan Quinn, so you're only helping the argument for Pete..........and the question was Best Hawk's Coach, so you can't include Holmgren's time in GB.


    What has Pete Carroll done without Dan Quinn as his DC?

    What he usually does. Underachieve.

    Dan Quinn in his short head coaching career has done more without Pete Carroll, than what Pete Carroll has done in his long HC career without Dan Quinn.


    That’s an incredibly small sample size. And it’s a red herring that distracts from the principal argument, which is whether Carroll or Holmgren was the better Seahawks HC. Clearly, Carroll was when you look at the objective facts.

    The Seahawks led the NFL in scoring defense in 2015 without Quinn, just like they led the NFL in scoring defense in 2012 without Quinn.

    Since 2015 (again, a small and arbitrary sample size that distracts from the real conversation), Carroll and Quinn have each made the playoffs twice, and Carroll has the slightly better winning percentage during that time frame. Atlanta regressed last season too, as the offense that led them to the Super Bowl fell off. The big difference is Carroll fired his underperforming OC, which should help improve the offense, while Quinn chose to keep Sarkisian this year.


    Led in Scoring Defense, loaded roster (#1 in DVOA) and couldn't make it to the NFC Championship Game on those years. Underachieved.

    Since your crediting Carroll with hiring Dan Quinn. You must also credit him for keeping CaBevell around all those years, losing the locker room, and destroying his would be dynasty. Pete had to blow the damn thing up because he had lost control. I am sorry, but Holmgren would've handled it much better. Pete is on some Jeff Fisher 7-9 BS. The difference is he has Russell Wilson to get him to 9-7, 10-6.

    Regardless of the smaller sample size Quinn has made a Superbowl and an NFC Championship Game without Carroll. Pete hasn't without Quinn despite fielding the best team in football multiplie years, he can't make an NFC Championship game without Dan Quinn.

    Dan Quinn > Pete Carroll

    Mike Holmgren > Dan Quinn > Pete Carroll

    Pete Carroll, IN SHORT ORDER, takes OUR SEAHAWKS to two Super Bowls in a row, winning the first one 43 to 8, and with INJURIES to TWO of his LOB, takes one of GOAT Quarterbacks down to ----> ONE <----play from winning the Seahawks 2ND SB, AND to top that off, he did it with none other than CaBevell.......Holmgren Super Bowl WINS?, ZILCH, NONE, NADA, ZERO.
    I liked the hell out of Holmgren, but Pete Carroll has orchestrated MORE playoff games WON, in a shorter period of time, 'AGAIN', that's even WITH CaBevell mucking up the Offense.
    so #1 is Pete Carroll>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>#2 is Mike Holmgren, no contest.
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6498
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm


Re: Pete or Holmgren
Thu Aug 30, 2018 5:23 pm
  • Mike Homgren squeezes a square peg into a round hole.

    Pete Carroll changes the shape of the hole.

    And I think that is the fundamental difference between the two, and why Carroll is a better overall coach.

    During the Holmgren years we always got frustrated with him making a player play a certain way to fit the system. He liked prototype players with prototype numbers. Carroll looks for freak athletes with intelligence, who study the game, and adapts his system to leverage their strengths and mitigate their weaknesses.
    User avatar
    KiwiHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2101
    Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 3:22 pm
    Location: Auckland, New Zealand


Re: Pete or Holmgren
Thu Aug 30, 2018 5:49 pm
  • KiwiHawk wrote:Mike Homgren squeezes a square peg into a round hole.

    Pete Carroll changes the shape of the hole.

    And I think that is the fundamental difference between the two, and why Carroll is a better overall coach.

    During the Holmgren years we always got frustrated with him making a player play a certain way to fit the system. He liked prototype players with prototype numbers. Carroll looks for freak athletes with intelligence, who study the game, and adapts his system to leverage their strengths and mitigate their weaknesses.


    I don't know man, I see Pete as more of 'change the shape of the hole but then claim it's still round' kinda coach. I mean, run first team, that had a clinically dead run game...
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3057
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


Re: Pete or Holmgren
Thu Aug 30, 2018 6:22 pm
  • mrt144 wrote:
    KiwiHawk wrote:Mike Homgren squeezes a square peg into a round hole.

    Pete Carroll changes the shape of the hole.

    And I think that is the fundamental difference between the two, and why Carroll is a better overall coach.

    During the Holmgren years we always got frustrated with him making a player play a certain way to fit the system. He liked prototype players with prototype numbers. Carroll looks for freak athletes with intelligence, who study the game, and adapts his system to leverage their strengths and mitigate their weaknesses.


    I don't know man, I see Pete as more of 'change the shape of the hole but then claim it's still round' kinda coach. I mean, run first team, that had a clinically dead run game...


    Yeah talking about squeezing a square peg into a round hole, thats Carroll to a tee. Being stubborn to a fault and keeping his philosophy of running the ball first even though the team didnt have the horses to do so and couldnt. Lord, it was hard to watch. Just a complete failure to adapt. Thankfully Russ was able to cover up a ton of the coaching issues, but still hard to watch. Speaking of having players and using their strengths,,,,,,I can promise you that Holmgren wouldnt have picked up one of the best pass catching TE's in the league and wasted him by having him block.
    User avatar
    pittpnthrs
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1009
    Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 10:19 am


Re: Pete or Holmgre
Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:42 pm
  • scutterhawk wrote:
    Fade wrote:
    hawknation2018 wrote:
    Fade wrote:
    What has Pete Carroll done without Dan Quinn as his DC?

    What he usually does. Underachieve.

    Dan Quinn in his short head coaching career has done more without Pete Carroll, than what Pete Carroll has done in his long HC career without Dan Quinn.


    That’s an incredibly small sample size. And it’s a red herring that distracts from the principal argument, which is whether Carroll or Holmgren was the better Seahawks HC. Clearly, Carroll was when you look at the objective facts.

    The Seahawks led the NFL in scoring defense in 2015 without Quinn, just like they led the NFL in scoring defense in 2012 without Quinn.

    Since 2015 (again, a small and arbitrary sample size that distracts from the real conversation), Carroll and Quinn have each made the playoffs twice, and Carroll has the slightly better winning percentage during that time frame. Atlanta regressed last season too, as the offense that led them to the Super Bowl fell off. The big difference is Carroll fired his underperforming OC, which should help improve the offense, while Quinn chose to keep Sarkisian this year.


    Led in Scoring Defense, loaded roster (#1 in DVOA) and couldn't make it to the NFC Championship Game on those years. Underachieved.

    Since your crediting Carroll with hiring Dan Quinn. You must also credit him for keeping CaBevell around all those years, losing the locker room, and destroying his would be dynasty. Pete had to blow the damn thing up because he had lost control. I am sorry, but Holmgren would've handled it much better. Pete is on some Jeff Fisher 7-9 BS. The difference is he has Russell Wilson to get him to 9-7, 10-6.

    Regardless of the smaller sample size Quinn has made a Superbowl and an NFC Championship Game without Carroll. Pete hasn't without Quinn despite fielding the best team in football multiplie years, he can't make an NFC Championship game without Dan Quinn.

    Dan Quinn > Pete Carroll

    Mike Holmgren > Dan Quinn > Pete Carroll

    Pete Carroll, IN SHORT ORDER, takes OUR SEAHAWKS to two Super Bowls in a row, winning the first one 43 to 8, and with INJURIES to TWO of his LOB, takes one of GOAT Quarterbacks down to ----> ONE <----play from winning the Seahawks 2ND SB, AND to top that off, he did it with none other than CaBevell.......Holmgren Super Bowl WINS?, ZILCH, NONE, NADA, ZERO.
    I liked the hell out of Holmgren, but Pete Carroll has orchestrated MORE playoff games WON, in a shorter period of time, 'AGAIN', that's even WITH CaBevell mucking up the Offense.
    so #1 is Pete Carroll>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>#2 is Mike Holmgren, no contest.


    Dan Quinn did.

    Those other years Pete couldn't even sniff the NFC Championship game.

    Quinn then went to ATL immediately turned them around, and put them in the Superbowl.
    User avatar
    Fade
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1671
    Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:26 am
    Location: Truth Ray


Re: Pete or Holmgre
Thu Aug 30, 2018 8:03 pm
  • hawknation2018 wrote:
    Fade wrote:
    hawknation2018 wrote:Greatest Seahawks Coach Math

    Championships
    1 > 0

    Conference Titles
    2 > 1

    Playoff victories
    9 > 4

    Most-consecutive seasons with playoff victories
    5 > 3

    Playoff winning %
    64% > 40%

    Regular season winning %
    62% > 54%

    Most-consecutive games without losing by more than 7 points
    65 (NFL record) > 17

    Most-consecutive games without losing by more than 10 points
    95 (NFL record) > 17

    Years leading NFL in scoring offense or defense
    4 > 1


    Talent level & Dan Quinn skew those numbers drastically.

    Without Dan Quinn Pete's Entire NFL Career, not just the Seahawks.

    = Championships = 0

    = Conference Titles = 0

    Dan Quinn immediately took the Falcons to the Superbowl after he left. Pete benefited from that.

    Dan Quinn & Russell Wilson have totally distorted people's view of Pete Carroll.


    Mike Holmgren's Entire NFL Career, not just the Seahawks.

    Championships = 1 (2)

    Conference Titles = 3


    The first part of your post is pure conjecture. Carroll hired Quinn for a reason. Atlanta has had success imitating Carroll’s philosophy, though they haven’t won a Super Bowl. Just like Jacksonville and San Francisco are having some success imitating Carroll, among others. You can’t separate the players and coaches whom Carroll acquired, just like you can’t separate the players and coaches under Holmgren.

    Also, you’re separating out three injury-plagued seasons post-Quinn. The Seahawks finished #1 in scoring defense in 2015 without Quinn. The Seahawks were #1 in scoring defense in 2012 without Quinn. Carroll has had enormous influence on the way the game is played, which is something Holmgren never had.

    As for your 2nd argument, if you want to talk about pre-Seahawks coaching career (which is not really the discussion) then you would have to factor in Carroll’s incredible success in college football: consecutive national championships, seven-straight seasons with Top 4 finishes, and NCAA records for most-consecutive games without losing by more than 7 points and by 10 points. Carroll has had amazing successes at both levels, which is very rare.


    College???? LMAO Where Pete Carroll had 35 1st rd picks every year. Completely irrelevant.

    Mike Holmgren no influense??? John Gruden, Andy Reed, etc, etc. Actually he has had more influence in the NFL than Carroll. Dan Quinn is the only successful coach to spawn off of Pete Carroll. He is also was only with Pete for a very short time, which was smart by him.


    #1 Defenses in 2012 & 2015, loaded rosters (#1 DVOA) still couldn't sniff the NFC Championship game those 2 years.

    The only 2 years where they weren't a dysfunctional albeit talented mess. Was the 2 years Quinn was there. Quinn leaves and it goes right back to being dysfunctional. Not a coincidence. Quinn goes on to lead the Falcons to the Superbowl. Carroll blows up his own team because he can't manage it, and lost control. That doesn't sound like a great coach to me.

    Holmgren > Quinn > Carroll

    Holmgren to lead and coach the team, + run the offense.

    Dan Quinn as the DC.

    Would be the best combo.
    User avatar
    Fade
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1671
    Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:26 am
    Location: Truth Ray


Re: Pete or Holmgre
Thu Aug 30, 2018 10:49 pm
  • Fade wrote:
    scutterhawk wrote:
    Fade wrote:
    hawknation2018 wrote:
    That’s an incredibly small sample size. And it’s a red herring that distracts from the principal argument, which is whether Carroll or Holmgren was the better Seahawks HC. Clearly, Carroll was when you look at the objective facts.

    The Seahawks led the NFL in scoring defense in 2015 without Quinn, just like they led the NFL in scoring defense in 2012 without Quinn.

    Since 2015 (again, a small and arbitrary sample size that distracts from the real conversation), Carroll and Quinn have each made the playoffs twice, and Carroll has the slightly better winning percentage during that time frame. Atlanta regressed last season too, as the offense that led them to the Super Bowl fell off. The big difference is Carroll fired his underperforming OC, which should help improve the offense, while Quinn chose to keep Sarkisian this year.


    Led in Scoring Defense, loaded roster (#1 in DVOA) and couldn't make it to the NFC Championship Game on those years. Underachieved.

    Since your crediting Carroll with hiring Dan Quinn. You must also credit him for keeping CaBevell around all those years, losing the locker room, and destroying his would be dynasty. Pete had to blow the damn thing up because he had lost control. I am sorry, but Holmgren would've handled it much better. Pete is on some Jeff Fisher 7-9 BS. The difference is he has Russell Wilson to get him to 9-7, 10-6.

    Regardless of the smaller sample size Quinn has made a Superbowl and an NFC Championship Game without Carroll. Pete hasn't without Quinn despite fielding the best team in football multiplie years, he can't make an NFC Championship game without Dan Quinn.

    Dan Quinn > Pete Carroll

    Mike Holmgren > Dan Quinn > Pete Carroll

    Pete Carroll, IN SHORT ORDER, takes OUR SEAHAWKS to two Super Bowls in a row, winning the first one 43 to 8, and with INJURIES to TWO of his LOB, takes one of GOAT Quarterbacks down to ----> ONE <----play from winning the Seahawks 2ND SB, AND to top that off, he did it with none other than CaBevell.......Holmgren Super Bowl WINS?, ZILCH, NONE, NADA, ZERO.
    I liked the hell out of Holmgren, but Pete Carroll has orchestrated MORE playoff games WON, in a shorter period of time, 'AGAIN', that's even WITH CaBevell mucking up the Offense.
    so #1 is Pete Carroll>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>#2 is Mike Holmgren, no contest.


    Dan Quinn did.

    Those other years Pete couldn't even sniff the NFC Championship game.

    Quinn then went to ATL immediately turned them around, and put them in the Superbowl.

    Now, you're conjecture reaching. LOL
    It's your belief that Pete deserves zero share of credit for fielding an outstanding Defense.... pretty sad.
    Pete still produced winning culture, even BEFORE having Quinn in the mix, AND even AFTER he was gone.
    Pete Carroll is without a speck of doubt, the BEST Head Coach in Seahawks History.
    By the way, Quinn has had his share of defeats to go along with his successes. EVEN Bill Belichecker & Co. loses very winnable games..........THEY ALL DO.
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6498
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm


Re: Pete or Holmgre
Thu Aug 30, 2018 10:54 pm
  • scutterhawk wrote:
    Fade wrote:
    scutterhawk wrote:
    Fade wrote:
    Led in Scoring Defense, loaded roster (#1 in DVOA) and couldn't make it to the NFC Championship Game on those years. Underachieved.

    Since your crediting Carroll with hiring Dan Quinn. You must also credit him for keeping CaBevell around all those years, losing the locker room, and destroying his would be dynasty. Pete had to blow the damn thing up because he had lost control. I am sorry, but Holmgren would've handled it much better. Pete is on some Jeff Fisher 7-9 BS. The difference is he has Russell Wilson to get him to 9-7, 10-6.

    Regardless of the smaller sample size Quinn has made a Superbowl and an NFC Championship Game without Carroll. Pete hasn't without Quinn despite fielding the best team in football multiplie years, he can't make an NFC Championship game without Dan Quinn.

    Dan Quinn > Pete Carroll

    Mike Holmgren > Dan Quinn > Pete Carroll

    Pete Carroll, IN SHORT ORDER, takes OUR SEAHAWKS to two Super Bowls in a row, winning the first one 43 to 8, and with INJURIES to TWO of his LOB, takes one of GOAT Quarterbacks down to ----> ONE <----play from winning the Seahawks 2ND SB, AND to top that off, he did it with none other than CaBevell.......Holmgren Super Bowl WINS?, ZILCH, NONE, NADA, ZERO.
    I liked the hell out of Holmgren, but Pete Carroll has orchestrated MORE playoff games WON, in a shorter period of time, 'AGAIN', that's even WITH CaBevell mucking up the Offense.
    so #1 is Pete Carroll>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>#2 is Mike Holmgren, no contest.


    Dan Quinn did.

    Those other years Pete couldn't even sniff the NFC Championship game.

    Quinn then went to ATL immediately turned them around, and put them in the Superbowl.

    Now, you're conjecture reaching. LOL
    It's your belief that Pete deserves zero share of credit for fielding an outstanding Defense.... pretty sad.
    Pete still produced winning culture, even BEFORE having Quinn in the mix, AND even AFTER he was gone.
    Pete Carroll is without a speck of doubt, the BEST Head Coach in Seahawks History.
    By the way, Quinn has had his share of defeats to go along with his successes. EVEN Bill Belichecker & Co. loses very winnable games..........THEY ALL DO.


    Winning Culture but can't make an AFC or NFC Championship game in his entire Head Coaching career without Quinn. Even when fielding the most talented team in the league in some of those seasons.

    Explain.
    User avatar
    Fade
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1671
    Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:26 am
    Location: Truth Ray


Re: Pete or Holmgre
Thu Aug 30, 2018 11:09 pm
  • Fade wrote:
    scutterhawk wrote:
    Fade wrote:
    scutterhawk wrote:Pete Carroll, IN SHORT ORDER, takes OUR SEAHAWKS to two Super Bowls in a row, winning the first one 43 to 8, and with INJURIES to TWO of his LOB, takes one of GOAT Quarterbacks down to ----> ONE <----play from winning the Seahawks 2ND SB, AND to top that off, he did it with none other than CaBevell.......Holmgren Super Bowl WINS?, ZILCH, NONE, NADA, ZERO.
    I liked the hell out of Holmgren, but Pete Carroll has orchestrated MORE playoff games WON, in a shorter period of time, 'AGAIN', that's even WITH CaBevell mucking up the Offense.
    so #1 is Pete Carroll>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>#2 is Mike Holmgren, no contest.


    Dan Quinn did.

    Those other years Pete couldn't even sniff the NFC Championship game.

    Quinn then went to ATL immediately turned them around, and put them in the Superbowl.

    Now, you're conjecture reaching. LOL
    It's your belief that Pete deserves zero share of credit for fielding an outstanding Defense.... pretty sad.
    Pete still produced winning culture, even BEFORE having Quinn in the mix, AND even AFTER he was gone.
    Pete Carroll is without a speck of doubt, the BEST Head Coach in Seahawks History.
    By the way, Quinn has had his share of defeats to go along with his successes. EVEN Bill Belichecker & Co. loses very winnable games..........THEY ALL DO.


    Winning Culture but can't make an AFC or NFC Championship game in his entire Head Coaching career without Quinn. Even when fielding the most talented team in the league in some of those seasons.

    Explain.
    .
    2012 pre-Quinn, and again in 2015.
    There's NO USE in trying to talk you off the ledge, I could explain (as MANY OTHERS HAVE), but your dislike for Pete Carroll gets in the way of reason, so it's a waste of time.
    Pretend.
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6498
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm


Re: Pete or Holmgren
Thu Aug 30, 2018 11:14 pm
  • What is all this about Dan Quinn? What has he won as a HC? No hate for DQ, he was a great DC. Your way of thinking is flawed though, just like the person who said we haven't accomplished much since Wilson got paid.

    Dan Quinn as DC --> Make two SBs, win one --> Dan Quinn leaves --> Haven't made SB since --> Pete can't make SB without Dan Quinn... Let me try:

    Shanahan as OC --> Falcons make SB --> Shanahan leaves --> Falcons don't make SB --> Quinn needs Shanny to make SB... seem fair to you?

    Overly simplistic thinking that ignores a multitude of factors, especially given that you don't know the degree of influence Pete had vs. Dan had on the defense. For the record, the Falcons defense has been mediocre to disastrous since Quinn has been there. Oh, they aren't as talented as what we had. I wonder who assembled and developed that talent.... Also you trumpet Quinn leading his team to the SB, yet fail to mention the horror-show that ensued when he got there.
    Last edited by adeltaY on Thu Aug 30, 2018 11:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    adeltaY
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3281
    Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:22 pm
    Location: Portland, OR


Re: Pete or Holmgren
Thu Aug 30, 2018 11:16 pm
  • adeltaY wrote:What is all this about Dan Quinn? What has he won as a HC? No hate for DQ, he was a great DC. Your way of thinking is flawed though, just like the person who said we haven't accomplished much since Wilson got paid.

    Dan Quinn as DC --> Make two SBs, win one --> Dan Quinn leaves --> Haven't made SB since --> Pete can't make SB without Dan Quinn... Let me try:

    Shanahan as OC --> Falcons make SB --> Shanahan leaves --> Falcons don't make SB --> Quinn needs Shanny to make SB... seem fair to you?

    Overly simplistic thinking that ignores a multitude of factors, especially given that you don't know the degree of influence Pete had vs. Dan had on the defense. For the record, the Falcons defense has been mediocre to disastrous since Quinn has been there. Oh, they aren't as talented as what we had. I wonder who assembled and developed that talent....


    Fade creates causation when mere correlation applies. Fallacious arguments don't become true simply because they're reiterated constantly and with strong adjectives.
    ____________
    BLUE and GREEN...
    User avatar
    Ad Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1850
    Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 8:25 am


Re: Pete or Holmgren
Thu Aug 30, 2018 11:19 pm
  • Ad Hawk wrote:
    adeltaY wrote:What is all this about Dan Quinn? What has he won as a HC? No hate for DQ, he was a great DC. Your way of thinking is flawed though, just like the person who said we haven't accomplished much since Wilson got paid.

    Dan Quinn as DC --> Make two SBs, win one --> Dan Quinn leaves --> Haven't made SB since --> Pete can't make SB without Dan Quinn... Let me try:

    Shanahan as OC --> Falcons make SB --> Shanahan leaves --> Falcons don't make SB --> Quinn needs Shanny to make SB... seem fair to you?

    Overly simplistic thinking that ignores a multitude of factors, especially given that you don't know the degree of influence Pete had vs. Dan had on the defense. For the record, the Falcons defense has been mediocre to disastrous since Quinn has been there. Oh, they aren't as talented as what we had. I wonder who assembled and developed that talent....


    Fade creates causation when mere correlation applies. Fallacious arguments don't become true simply because they're reiterated constantly and with strong adjectives.


    And yet without out Quinn those 2 years. Pete Carroll has done next to nothing in the NFL as a HC.
    User avatar
    Fade
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1671
    Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:26 am
    Location: Truth Ray


Re: Pete or Holmgre
Fri Aug 31, 2018 12:11 am
  • scutterhawk wrote:
    Fade wrote:
    scutterhawk wrote:
    Fade wrote:
    Dan Quinn did.

    Those other years Pete couldn't even sniff the NFC Championship game.

    Quinn then went to ATL immediately turned them around, and put them in the Superbowl.

    Now, you're conjecture reaching. LOL
    It's your belief that Pete deserves zero share of credit for fielding an outstanding Defense.... pretty sad.
    Pete still produced winning culture, even BEFORE having Quinn in the mix, AND even AFTER he was gone.
    Pete Carroll is without a speck of doubt, the BEST Head Coach in Seahawks History.
    By the way, Quinn has had his share of defeats to go along with his successes. EVEN Bill Belichecker & Co. loses very winnable games..........THEY ALL DO.


    Winning Culture but can't make an AFC or NFC Championship game in his entire Head Coaching career without Quinn. Even when fielding the most talented team in the league in some of those seasons.

    Explain.
    .
    2012 pre-Quinn, and again in 2015.
    There's NO USE in trying to talk you off the ledge, I could explain (as MANY OTHERS HAVE), but your dislike for Pete Carroll gets in the way of reason, so it's a waste of time.
    Pretend.


    2012

    He had the best team in the NFL (#1 DVOA). He couldn't make the NFC Championship Game. He blew 5 4th qtr leads that year. Finishing with an epic choke job on the road in ATL. Pete Carroll has stated that has kept him up many a night. Held back his impressive Rookie QB the 1st half of that season. He later admitted it was a mistake to do so. Winning 1 playoff game against an injured RG III. Is that impressive to you? It sounds like underachieving to me.

    2015

    He had the best team in the NFL (#1 DVOA). He kept his bumbling offensive coaching staff intact. The Players turn on Pete for not firing anyone after the debacle. They blow a bunch of 4th quarter leads then go and proceed to get blown out in Carolina.

    These are the 2 years you're going to cite to prove Pete Carroll is better than Holmgren? I know why though. Pete hasn't had a lot of good years.

    Coaches are supposed to get the most out of their teams. So it is all relative. I am not saying win the SuperBowl every year, but is it too much to ask to make the Conference Championship game when you have the most talented team in the NFL? #1 Defense, a wizard at QB, & Beastmode. Was the deck not stacked enough for him?

    His 7-9 Season in 2010 was his best coaching job. That team flatout sucked. But he got the most out of them.

    Not so much his other seasons.

    Pete does less with more. That is his track record, it is what he does.


    The objective of coaching is to do more with less. Belichick is the master of this.


    Holmgren is also way better than Pete at doing more with less.


    Pete's management of the team post debacle has been very bad. So bad in fact he had to fire nearly his entire coaching staff, and jettison many star players who he could no longer handle. HE LOST THE TEAM.

    The irony is you're the one pretending friend.

    I am living in reality.
    User avatar
    Fade
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1671
    Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:26 am
    Location: Truth Ray


Re: Pete or Holmgren
Fri Aug 31, 2018 2:00 am
  • Fade wrote:Give Mike Holmgren the Seahawks rosters of '12-'16 and he wins more than 1 superbowl guaranteed.


    This times infinity. Great memories under holmgren, I recall far less fans back in those days. I went to a local south king county high school for two years, and was the only hawk fan I can recall. Pete got the hardware, holm would coach pete under the table on gameday though imho.
    Depending on how this season and next goes I think opinions may sway towards holm

    1 super bowl win with the roster we had is not something to be proud of, holm was robbed of one aswell
    World champs sb48

    Aros wrote:

    Wait, MizzouHawkGal is a DUDE??
    User avatar
    hawksincebirth
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 541
    Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:12 pm
    Location: Marysville


Re: Pete or Holmgren
Fri Aug 31, 2018 2:05 am
  • Ad Hawk wrote:
    Fade wrote:
    Ad Hawk wrote:
    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?


    Doubt he wins more than one, if that. His approach to the offense would never allow Russ to scramble the way he did. He was too straight-laced. He wouldn't have known how to make our disfunctional offense work the way Pete does. This roster was made by Pete to match his game philosophy, not MH's.

    Too many people here overvalued the past roster thinking we should have been SB winners 3-4 years straight. That's ludicrous, and only wishful thinking. We had a good roster, but it wasn't that much better than the next best rosters; just stacked in different areas. Holmgren was a good coach, but didn't even have his own team ready to beat the Refs in his only SB with us.

    He definitely would of ran in with lynch that’s one thing we can bank. Shawn Alexander made a fortune off of one yard td runs lmao done
    World champs sb48

    Aros wrote:

    Wait, MizzouHawkGal is a DUDE??
    User avatar
    hawksincebirth
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 541
    Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:12 pm
    Location: Marysville


Re: Pete or Holmgren
Fri Aug 31, 2018 2:08 am
  • hawknation2018 wrote:
    Fade wrote:
    Ad Hawk wrote:
    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.

    Give holmgren same roster he may win 4, Bennett would not of had false starts every other down that’s for sure. You completely dodged the question. Same roster- different coach
    World champs sb48

    Aros wrote:

    Wait, MizzouHawkGal is a DUDE??
    User avatar
    hawksincebirth
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 541
    Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:12 pm
    Location: Marysville


Re: Pete or Holmgren
Fri Aug 31, 2018 2:09 am
  • Fade wrote:
    Ad Hawk wrote:
    Fade wrote:
    Ad Hawk wrote:
    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?


    Doubt he wins more than one, if that. His approach to the offense would never allow Russ to scramble the way he did. He was too straight-laced. He wouldn't have known how to make our disfunctional offense work the way Pete does. This roster was made by Pete to match his game philosophy, not MH's.

    Too many people here overvalued the past roster thinking we should have been SB winners 3-4 years straight. That's ludicrous, and only wishful thinking. We had a good roster, but it wasn't that much better than the next best rosters; just stacked in different areas. Holmgren was a good coach, but didn't even have his own team ready to beat the Refs in his only SB with us.


    1. See Brett Favre under Holmgren. Russell Wilson would do just fine in a more well run structured offense, and then being able to still scramble around and make plays when necessary. Favre did it all the time.

    2. The offense wouldn't be dysfunctional if Holmgren ran it. With Lynch & Russell they would be one of the best. Holmgren was one of the best Red Zone playcallers in NFL history. No 1 yard line shenanigans to say the least.

    3 '12-'16 is 5 seasons. '12, '13, '14, '15, '16. The Seahawks were #1 in DVOA a record 4 straight seasons. The roster was loaded.

    Pete underachieved.

    Russ would win mvp under holm no doubt, he would be top 3 rn
    World champs sb48

    Aros wrote:

    Wait, MizzouHawkGal is a DUDE??
    User avatar
    hawksincebirth
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 541
    Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:12 pm
    Location: Marysville


Re: Pete or Holmgren
Fri Aug 31, 2018 2:24 am
  • pittpnthrs wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote: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.



    He’s got to be kidding , west coast offense beats sandlot football cmon
    World champs sb48

    Aros wrote:

    Wait, MizzouHawkGal is a DUDE??
    User avatar
    hawksincebirth
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 541
    Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:12 pm
    Location: Marysville


Re: Pete or Holmgren
Fri Aug 31, 2018 2:37 am
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    pittpnthrs wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote: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.


    So holmgren gets zero credit for San Fran dynasty ? 2 sb wins as o.c.
    Brett Favre? Developing Steve young ?
    The clink is the house holgrem friggin built
    Lofa tatupu?
    Trufant?
    Building one of the best lines of all time
    MVP running back ?
    Ncaa trophy BYU
    Joe Montana’s best 2 seasons (also mvp years)
    This debate is closer then you CHOOSE TO BELIEVE
    World champs sb48

    Aros wrote:

    Wait, MizzouHawkGal is a DUDE??
    User avatar
    hawksincebirth
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 541
    Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:12 pm
    Location: Marysville


Re: Pete or Holmgren
Fri Aug 31, 2018 2:41 am
  • purpleneer wrote: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.

    Top 10 most disrespectful comment I’ve read here ?? You new ?
    World champs sb48

    Aros wrote:

    Wait, MizzouHawkGal is a DUDE??
    User avatar
    hawksincebirth
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 541
    Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:12 pm
    Location: Marysville


Re: Pete or Holmgren
Fri Aug 31, 2018 3:25 am
  • Hawker8989 wrote:
    seahawkfreak wrote: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.


    Holmgren had the better QB and an overall wash at RB (esp. considering OL), but definitely nowhere near the defense.
    NINEster
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1618
    Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 7:06 pm


Re: Pete or Holmgren
Fri Aug 31, 2018 3:28 am
  • Pete was a very good DC in SF, but Holmgren did elevate the Walsh WCO under Montana from very good to glorious.

    I'd say Holmgren here.
    NINEster
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1618
    Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 7:06 pm


Re: Pete or Holmgren
Fri Aug 31, 2018 4:07 am
  • purpleneer wrote:
    KiwiHawk wrote:
    purpleneer wrote:
    KiwiHawk wrote:
    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).

    I'd take Graham over Stevens every time; reliability matters. Overall first-round performance, Holmy was 2 for 6 in 4 years and the latest selection was the trade-down spots of Stevens and the the 2 hits were the easiest decisions that Ruskell probably even makes.


    Graham caught more balls , he was targeted more than Stevens (schemes) holm actually had a te that could chip block and actually be more of a Zach miller type
    But Stevens was having a great first 3-4 seasons with more games actually played then jimmy graham .. 2 tds from Jimmy graham his first season lol, the lack of respect for holm in this thread is comical, they literally could call the clink the house holmgren built. He will be a HOF eventually.

    ... which is exactly why holm wins this strictly on x-o’s debate imo. There is a complete lack of how great a offensive mind mike was. We definitely do not lose to pats . Mike called his plays . He runs that in and actually has a line who can score from the one yard line. Alexa play Shawn Alexander highlights of mvp season.

    The draft narrative mystique of Pete Carroll is way over rated
    2010-2015 we HAVE 7-8 players that are on our roster from that HOME RUN PERIOD WHICH WAS REALLY ONLY 2 good drafts (russ, wags, kj, earl?, Britt, Lockett, Clark, ifedi.)
    So we traded out of the first and got all those comp picks year after year. For 7-8 players, one of which a hof safety, who clearly wants out so bad he goes to and opposing coach and screams “come get me”
    If you give credit for the build you must look at the fall
    take a look at who we drafted or had and who we let go or lost
    (Tate, okung, carp, sweezy, sherm, kam, Spencer ware, p rich, unger) ouch don’t we miss the days when all we had to worry about was if unger was gonna get hurt, or giacomini got a flag for being a dirt bag
    Marshawn trade great +1
    Avril +1
    Bennett who we cut? For a kicker I believe coutu? He still in the league ?
    Harvin trade -3 (Tate- 40$ mil guaranteed or something like that right ? Wrecked the team in my opinion
    Graham trade -2 and very damning of someone, who? Drew brees as qb jimmy graham caught 99 balls one year ..99
    The trade itself lost us unger ( who the kool aid crowd) claimed was banged up and damaged goods has missed I believe one game for the saints since the trade! (Or maybe2-3) excuse me I’m only posting from the hip here.
    The lack of being able to use a weapon like jimmy graham is another -1, just pop the tape of New Orleans offense and repeat
    Would holm have tried to make a glorified basketball player into Zach miller?

    This is a long a I’m sure scrambled post, but this is nails look at our misses of pets tenure, we missed on guys who didn’t even sniff the league after we cut them. Like seriously bevell and cable get all the blame for the epic collapse of one of the best assembled teams of all time?? Your joking right?

    Epic level roster moves and trades made and broke Pete’s career so far here in Seattle. I can atleast be honest and look at the facts... I’ve never liked pete, he can’t even give a straight answer. Reminds me of a politician or a vacuum salesman just me . I was wrong pete got one, epically and utterly lost one that will also tarnish this franchise for all time.

    We will maybe never have an exact answer but the writing is on the wall for this run. If pete turns it around and wins I’ll admit I’m wrong but I don’t see it. Pete is too old and set in his ways. Or you believe Brian Schottenheimer, whose offenses in St. Louis regularly were horrible sans one semi good year from a rookie Sam Bradford. Rewatch the 2010 nfc play in game vs the rams where clipboard jesus got us to the playoffs at 7-9 .. I’ll cheat for you they scored 6 points in that game :0190l:

    To each his own . This is nails

    Pete got one ring, you can easily say we could have won russ’s rookie year , pats sb Lynch game and any subsequent chance at a 3 pete pun intended
    This franchise should mirror the pats imho right now, pete should be grooming a successor and we should have some more damn trophies
    Should be perennial contenders, we are about to experience mediocrity again. Then we will see who is a real fan
    Op I apologize this is strictly not aimed at you
    Nite company kick off tomorrow
    World champs sb48

    Aros wrote:

    Wait, MizzouHawkGal is a DUDE??
    User avatar
    hawksincebirth
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 541
    Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:12 pm
    Location: Marysville


Re: Pete or Holmgren
Fri Aug 31, 2018 6:45 am
  • NINEster wrote:
    Hawker8989 wrote:
    seahawkfreak wrote: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.


    Holmgren had the better QB and an overall wash at RB (esp. considering OL), but definitely nowhere near the defense.


    What nonsense. Another troll saying Hass was better than Russ.
    adeltaY
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3281
    Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:22 pm
    Location: Portland, OR


Re: Pete or Holmgren
Fri Aug 31, 2018 6:53 am
  • The amount of self-delusion about Holmgren in this thread is hilarious. Yes, go ahead and circle jerk to imaginary scenarios to convince yourself that despite actual history and results he was better.
    Milehighhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 719
    Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:33 pm


Re: Pete or Holmgren
Fri Aug 31, 2018 7:48 am
  • hawksincebirth wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    pittpnthrs wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote: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.


    So holmgren gets zero credit for San Fran dynasty ? 2 sb wins as o.c.
    Brett Favre? Developing Steve young ?
    The clink is the house holgrem friggin built
    Lofa tatupu?
    Trufant?
    Building one of the best lines of all time
    MVP running back ?
    Ncaa trophy BYU
    Joe Montana’s best 2 seasons (also mvp years)
    This debate is closer then you CHOOSE TO BELIEVE


    You missed the part where I said Holmgren was a great QB evaluator and developer..........and no, you don't get much credit for drafting guys like Trufant and Alexander in the first round when every other team had them on their board to as very talented at their position. Good job coach for drafting a 1st round RB and playing him!

    Here's the fact, NO ONE'S developed more raw talent in either college or the pros than Pete. He might be the greatest of all time at developing and teaching raw talent.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13308
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: Pete or Holmgren
Fri Aug 31, 2018 11:08 am
  • The pro-Holmgren arguments here have to be classified as some combination of trolling and delusion at this point.
    purpleneer
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 322
    Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:19 pm
    Location: The Green Lantern (almost)


Re: Pete or Holmgren
Fri Aug 31, 2018 11:16 am
  • purpleneer wrote:The pro-Holmgren arguments here have to be classified as some combination of trolling and delusion at this point.


    It's like pining for an ex when your current relationship is not so hot. In that frame of mind I get it - I've thought about people I've dated when times are rocky and how fun and fresh it was but then always arrive at the reason we parted ways.

    But I also have a dating philosophy I nicked from my wife - "Date em till you hate em and never look back"
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3057
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


Re: Pete or Holmgren
Fri Aug 31, 2018 11:19 am
  • hawksincebirth wrote:
    So holmgren gets zero credit for San Fran dynasty ? 2 sb wins as o.c.
    Brett Favre? Developing Steve young ?
    The clink is the house holgrem friggin built Wow. Stadium approval came in '97, but Holmgren came in '99 and gets credit for it? You tell me whether this is delusion or trolling.
    Lofa tatupu? Not a Holmgren acquisition
    Trufant? Not a Holmgren acquisition
    Building one of the best lines of all time Big Walt not a Holmgren acquisition
    MVP running back ?
    Ncaa trophy BYU
    Joe Montana’s best 2 seasons (also mvp years)
    This debate is closer then you CHOOSE TO BELIEVE
    purpleneer
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 322
    Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:19 pm
    Location: The Green Lantern (almost)


Re: Pete or Holmgren
Fri Aug 31, 2018 6:16 pm
  • I'm not going to rank Pete Carroll over Holmgren because he assembled the most talented young roster the NFL has ever seen in 20 years. And then proceeds to mismanage and bumble around for several seasons, team gets blown up because the coach lost control of the whole situation, and now has to start over. That is the definition of underachieving.


    When the documentary comes out for this era of Seahawks football. 30 for 30, or whatever. That is what it will be about. How Pete screwed it up.

    Holmgren > Carroll.
    User avatar
    Fade
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1671
    Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:26 am
    Location: Truth Ray


Re: Pete or Holmgre
Sat Sep 01, 2018 12:51 am
  • hawknation2018 wrote:
    Fade wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Pete hired Dan Quinn, so you're only helping the argument for Pete..........and the question was Best Hawk's Coach, so you can't include Holmgren's time in GB.


    What has Pete Carroll done without Dan Quinn as his DC?

    What he usually does. Underachieve.

    Dan Quinn in his short head coaching career has done more without Pete Carroll, than what Pete Carroll has done in his long HC career without Dan Quinn.


    That’s an incredibly small sample size. And it’s a red herring that distracts from the principal argument, which is whether Carroll or Holmgren was the better Seahawks HC. Clearly, Carroll was when you look at the objective facts.

    The Seahawks led the NFL in scoring defense in 2015 without Quinn, just like they led the NFL in scoring defense in 2012 without Quinn.

    Since 2015 (again, a small and arbitrary sample size that distracts from the real conversation), Carroll and Quinn have each made the playoffs twice, and Carroll has the slightly better winning percentage during that time frame. Atlanta regressed last season too, as the offense that led them to the Super Bowl fell off. The big difference is Carroll fired his underperforming OC, which should help improve the offense, while Quinn chose to keep Sarkisian this year.

    So again this proves pete underachieving again best defense in league . Wasn’t 2015 russ best year was that the season him and db lit it up ! So how does this prove anything pete had the best roster in league and failed to win
    World champs sb48

    Aros wrote:

    Wait, MizzouHawkGal is a DUDE??
    User avatar
    hawksincebirth
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 541
    Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:12 pm
    Location: Marysville


Re: Pete or Holmgren
Sat Sep 01, 2018 1:02 am
  • purpleneer wrote:
    hawksincebirth wrote:
    So holmgren gets zero credit for San Fran dynasty ? 2 sb wins as o.c.
    Brett Favre? Developing Steve young ?
    The clink is the house holgrem friggin built Wow. Stadium approval came in '97, but Holmgren came in '99 and gets credit for it? You tell me whether this is delusion or trolling.
    Lofa tatupu? Not a Holmgren acquisition
    Trufant? Not a Holmgren acquisition
    Building one of the best lines of all time Big Walt not a Holmgren acquisition
    MVP running back ?
    Ncaa trophy BYU
    Joe Montana’s best 2 seasons (also mvp years)
    This debate is closer then you CHOOSE TO BELIEVE


    Ok so holgrem wasn’t coaching in 2005 when lofa was selected and we went to the super bowl ? And wasn’t the coach in 2003 either .. are we talking Seahawks right ? And holmgren wasn’t the coach when we played at husky stadium ? 0/3 so far should I continue we’re u even alive during this timeframe. Pete had to be forced to draft russ by Schneider but he gets credit.. lol are you trolling bro
    World champs sb48

    Aros wrote:

    Wait, MizzouHawkGal is a DUDE??
    User avatar
    hawksincebirth
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 541
    Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:12 pm
    Location: Marysville


Re: Pete or Holmgren
Sat Sep 01, 2018 1:07 am
  • Milehighhawk wrote:The amount of self-delusion about Holmgren in this thread is hilarious. Yes, go ahead and circle jerk to imaginary scenarios to convince yourself that despite actual history and results he was better.

    Your crowd will circle jerk that we are super bowl bound... lol it’s over bro. Dynasty failed. Accept it pete will high tail after this season just like usc.
    World champs sb48

    Aros wrote:

    Wait, MizzouHawkGal is a DUDE??
    User avatar
    hawksincebirth
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 541
    Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:12 pm
    Location: Marysville


Re: Pete or Holmgren
Sat Sep 01, 2018 1:12 am
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    hawksincebirth wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    pittpnthrs wrote:
    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.


    So holmgren gets zero credit for San Fran dynasty ? 2 sb wins as o.c.
    Brett Favre? Developing Steve young ?
    The clink is the house holgrem friggin built
    Lofa tatupu?
    Trufant?
    Building one of the best lines of all time
    MVP running back ?
    Ncaa trophy BYU
    Joe Montana’s best 2 seasons (also mvp years)
    This debate is closer then you CHOOSE TO BELIEVE


    You missed the part where I said Holmgren was a great QB evaluator and developer..........and no, you don't get much credit for drafting guys like Trufant and Alexander in the first round when every other team had them on their board to as very talented at their position. Good job coach for drafting a 1st round RB and playing him!

    Here's the fact, NO ONE'S developed more raw talent in either college or the pros than Pete. He might be the greatest of all time at developing and teaching raw talent.

    How many players are on roster from those great drafts 7 . 7 how many first rounders did we hit on ? 2 earl and okung so by your logic those cancel out Alexander and trufant. The lengths you guys will go to bury your head in the sand or kool aid is crazy, so Pete’s developed more raw talent in a shorter career than say bill belichek or jon madden or other couches who have had much longer careers. Pete made the team . Yes also give him credit for being the captain when it crumbled. How did that raw talent pete coached look like this pre season lol horrible. So by your thinking we are what 12-4 this year
    If your going to keep arguing this point can we please use stats that aren’t pure conjecture or just made up.
    Pete won one bowl with the best defense ever assembled, with one of the best qbs ever selected in third round .(hof) took a great dominant team and completely lost it .. holgrem took a undersized finesse defense that was under sized and less tallest led by Matt hass and were robbed of a Super Bowl ... how do you give pete a free pass on destroying a dynasty.
    Last edited by hawksincebirth on Sat Sep 01, 2018 1:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
    World champs sb48

    Aros wrote:

    Wait, MizzouHawkGal is a DUDE??
    User avatar
    hawksincebirth
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 541
    Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:12 pm
    Location: Marysville


Re: Pete or Holmgren
Sat Sep 01, 2018 1:20 am
  • Fade wrote:I'm not going to rank Pete Carroll over Holmgren because he assembled the most talented young roster the NFL has ever seen in 20 years. And then proceeds to mismanage and bumble around for several seasons, team gets blown up because the coach lost control of the whole situation, and now has to start over. That is the definition of underachieving.


    When the documentary comes out for this era of Seahawks football. 30 for 30, or whatever. That is what it will be about. How Pete screwed it up.

    Holmgren > Carroll.

    Even after pete leaves or is retired or axed they still will not ever blame pete for anything lol, he gets all the credit for the build none of the blame for one of the most epic underachieving coaching stints in nfl history. We will literally be tortured by the play for the rest of our natural lives lol ... makes me sick, how’s petes last 5 drafts go . The draft and scout extrodanire has absolutely wifed on some of the worst Seahawks draft picks of all time . Where is Jesse Williams, Kevin Norwood , where’s cristine Michael these days he even in the league lmao
    World champs sb48

    Aros wrote:

    Wait, MizzouHawkGal is a DUDE??
    User avatar
    hawksincebirth
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 541
    Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:12 pm
    Location: Marysville


Re: Pete or Holmgren
Sat Sep 01, 2018 8:45 am
  • Fade wrote:I'm not going to rank Pete Carroll over Holmgren because he assembled the most talented young roster the NFL has ever seen in 20 years. And then proceeds to mismanage and bumble around for several seasons, team gets blown up because the coach lost control of the whole situation, and now has to start over. That is the definition of underachieving.


    When the documentary comes out for this era of Seahawks football. 30 for 30, or whatever. That is what it will be about. How Pete screwed it up.

    Holmgren > Carroll.

    I think we're done. You apparently live in a world where the Holmgren era was very different from what it actually was.
    purpleneer
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 322
    Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:19 pm
    Location: The Green Lantern (almost)


PreviousNext


It is currently Tue Oct 16, 2018 8:17 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information