Change your opinion on Holmgren?

pehawk

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
1,738
So, ever since I heard he motivated for SBXL using cash, and only cash, to motivate the Hawks, I've been curious about Holmgren. I think the below is harsh, but probably accurate, I kinda think Holmgren sold out awhile ago.

Rucker swept more broadly, suggesting that Holmgren got rid of Brown so that Holmgren wouldn’t have to worry about Brown blowing the whistle on Holmgren to the boss.  “If you were a guy like Mike Holmgren and you came here and you took advantage of a Randy Lerner and the fact that he was an absent owner and you wanted to do whatever you wanted to do, show up whenever you wanted to show up and promise everything and give nothing and take $48 million out of here, would you want Jim Brown around and he’s loyal to the owner?” Rucker said.  “No you wouldn’t. . . .

“The fact is Mike Holmgren was a fake. . . .  You’re in this business and the fact is Jim Brown tells the truth.  People can’t take it.”.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... rens-boys/
 

Spounge84

Active member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
1,971
Reaction score
0
Location
Tacoma, WA
As much as I appreciate Holmgren for what he did here, it always felt to me like his teams just seemed to underachieve.
 

Scottemojo

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
14,663
Reaction score
1
Jim Brown has been on the Browns payroll for decades as a mascot. I think both got a lot of money for very little.

Remember Holmgren publicly stumping to be czar of Seattle football? How happy are you he didn't get that?
 
OP
OP
P

pehawk

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
1,738
I can see Holmgren's point on Jim Brown, kinda? Its shmultzy and corny to keep former stars around for no reason. But, it's Cleveland, so I can understand keeping strong bonds to "glory" times around, also.

Something seemed off with Holmgren's tenure there, though. That team had talent, but he made a nepotistic choice with Shurmer...then convinced him to cut corners with staff (at least one year they didn't have an OC). Holmgren did a great job getting the right people to find the right talent from a players standpoint, but thats it.

In hindsight the idea he went there with the sole purpose of a cash grab, doesn't smell too fishy. Really.
 

kearly

New member
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
15,975
Reaction score
0
I don't get it. Are people saying that Holmgren went to Cleveland just for the paycheck? There are some things regarding Holmgren that are worth debating, but I'd call bullshit on that one. Holmgren actually wanted to return to Seattle for his 11th season but TR showed him the door as Mora had already been appointed. Which is understandable, my point being that Holmgren still had the itch for football. And he already had tens of millions in the bank. So the money angle makes no sense, IMO.

Scottemojo":3psfu6rl said:
Remember Holmgren publicly stumping to be czar of Seattle football? How happy are you he didn't get that?

Very.

It would have been fun watching Fieldgulls explode, though. :snack:
 

chris98251

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Messages
39,524
Reaction score
1,522
Location
Roy Wa.
Holmgren wanted to win, his biggest regret here was he wasn't given the chance to finsih the GM side of it, situationally after he was demoted was when the team took off with players he mostly brought in. He wanted to prove his ability in Cleveland, not cash a check. Also if you look at Jim Browns history it doesn't take much to get him upset either, Holmgren and the Browns were not the first management group to get him upset, along with most issues that he feels were prejudice in many ways.
 

hawker84

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2012
Messages
5,603
Reaction score
318
Location
Tri Cities, WA
Spounge84":2rl9hk5i said:
As much as I appreciate Holmgren for what he did here, it always felt to me like his teams just seemed to underachieve.

Underacheived? His 2005 team did everything they had to do to win that SB, all the while being the underdog throughout the playoffs.

they were stripped of that championship by an inept officiating crew... how did they underachieve?
 

SmokinHawk

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
9,106
Reaction score
1,080
Location
Bellingham
Holmgren was a closed minded fool who refused to adapt to the NFL's changing landscape. He also never had any business stepping into an NFL front office. He was a good, if overrated, coach, but as a front office man, he was godawful.
 

Sarlacc83

Active member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
17,110
Reaction score
1
Location
Portland, OR
SmokinHawk":sq9ba6pd said:
Holmgren was a closed minded fool who refused to adapt to the NFL's changing landscape. He also never had any business stepping into an NFL front office. He was a good, if overrated, coach, but as a front office man, he was godawful.

It's an interesting contrast (and sometimes comparison) to Carroll in that their both men with strong convictions in their systems, but to this point, PC seems willing to adapt his to the ever changing landscape of the NFL. Moreover, that's probably because Carroll's system is almost more philosophical in nature (it's certainly at a higher level than the X's and O's) which makes it both easier and more difficult to abide by at this point.
 

SmokinHawk

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
9,106
Reaction score
1,080
Location
Bellingham
Sarlacc83":18050nci said:
SmokinHawk":18050nci said:
Holmgren was a closed minded fool who refused to adapt to the NFL's changing landscape. He also never had any business stepping into an NFL front office. He was a good, if overrated, coach, but as a front office man, he was godawful.

It's an interesting contrast (and sometimes comparison) to Carroll in that their both men with strong convictions in their systems, but to this point, PC seems willing to adapt his to the ever changing landscape of the NFL. Moreover, that's probably because Carroll's system is almost more philosophical in nature (it's certainly at a higher level than the X's and O's) which makes it both easier and more difficult to abide by at this point.

Carroll's approach definitely attacks the heart of the matter much more thoroughly than Holmgren's did. Admittedly, Holmgren's entire tenure was subject to the suspect actions of every GM we had, including Holmgren, himself, but his teams were never as well coached as our Seahawks are now. It's safe to say that we're an absolute force in all three phases of the game, and that is something we dared not dream of during the Holmgren years. We had a fair to good (and one lousy year, great) offense, average to lousy defense, and special teams that ranged from good in the Burleson/Washington KR/PR years to hideously bad pre-2006. Good as some of Holmgren's teams were, they lived and died by their veteran starters. More often than not, the veterans underachieved, likely so that they could draw a consistent paycheck Over time the winning attitude would fade, coming to a head in 2008.

Carroll's philosophy isn't without its pitfalls, but it's a big part of why we have a locker room full of bad asses, rather than powder puffs. When Carroll took over, he got rid of the aging vets who were just using us as part of their retirement plans, and brought in a bunch of hungry rookies, UDFAs, and a veritable herd of cast offs, and managed two games better than the previous season (Jim Mora's 5-11 odyssey). Holmgren's philosophy was about scoring points and hanging on to leads. Carroll's philosophy is about building complete teams, with players who want to win.
 

Scottemojo

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
14,663
Reaction score
1
I think Holmgren was awful as Cleveland's GM, but firing Jim Brown was hardly his biggest error. In fact, I think it needed to be done. Jim Brown was getting paid as a "consultant" for doing pretty much nothing but breathe, something he would have done for free, right? It would have been one of my first moves too. Brown wants good money to be the ugliest cheerleader in the NFL. Canning Brown should be applauded, not criticized.

Holmgren's errors in Cleveland, unlike his errors as GM for Seattle, are not mostly in Personnel. True, over riding his scouts to hand pick Colt was stupid, but they drafted some pretty good talent, especially on defense, while he was there. Maybe Heckert deserves that credit, I dunno. But not firing Mangini that first year even though he knew he would get rid of him eventually, hiring his next head coach from his list of West Coast disciples instead of just finding the best coach, those are just two of the bad decisions that doomed him. In fact, that first season in Cleveland really had the feel of a tank job that didn't work well enough, Holmgren as well as anyone was recently familiar with how difficult it is to win when you are a lame duck. As for him being accused of being an absentee, Rucker sounds pretty bitter. I know the new owner pretty much did not want Holmgren around at all, so maybe it is tied to that.
 

Spounge84

Active member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
1,971
Reaction score
0
Location
Tacoma, WA
hawker84":q3y2k3sx said:
Spounge84":q3y2k3sx said:
As much as I appreciate Holmgren for what he did here, it always felt to me like his teams just seemed to underachieve.

Underacheived? His 2005 team did everything they had to do to win that SB, all the while being the underdog throughout the playoffs.

they were stripped of that championship by an inept officiating crew... how did they underachieve?


With how talented the Holmgren Seahawks were they should have easily made it to at least one more Super Bowl, but they only won 4 playoff games in 6 playoff seasons. Holmgren's teams were regularly beaten by lesser opponents and had a habit of giving up leads late. He had 2 HOFers and 12 other Pro Bowl players while he was here, but the team would often come out flat in big or important games.

Like I said I appreciate Holmgren, he's the only coach to take us to a Super Bowl which is a hell of a lot more than anyone else who's coached the 'Hawks can say. But that doesn't mean that his teams didn't underachieve, and weren't capable of accomplishing far more.
 

Jerhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
6,214
Reaction score
2,975
Location
Spokane, WA
Love coach Holmgren as a coach, but that's about it. This article was interesting, thanks for sharing it.

Isn't Holmgren part of our local announcers with Moon now?
 
OP
OP
P

pehawk

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
1,738
Smoking needs to knock the "good poster" gimmick off, immediately. I hate appreciating his contributions.
 

onanygivensunday

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
5,736
Reaction score
1,669
Jerhawk":2rqwpg0m said:
Isn't Holmgren part of our local announcers with Moon now?
He's a co-host of sorts with Softy on KJR950 AM.

Haven't heard that he joined the KIRO710 Hawks broadcast team. I don't believe that has happened.
 

volsunghawk

New member
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
8,860
Reaction score
0
Location
Right outside Richard Sherman's house
hawker84":1gcgeenb said:
Spounge84":1gcgeenb said:
As much as I appreciate Holmgren for what he did here, it always felt to me like his teams just seemed to underachieve.

Underacheived? His 2005 team did everything they had to do to win that SB, all the while being the underdog throughout the playoffs.

they were stripped of that championship by an inept officiating crew... how did they underachieve?

Jerramy Stevens dropped multiple passes.

Josh Brown missed 2 FGs.

The defense managed to sack Roethlisberger an entire ONE time.

The defense also allowed a 75-yd TD run and a 40+ yard TD on a gimmick play.

Holmgren's clock management was awful.

While the officiating was abysmal and clearly one-sided, let's not pretend the Seahawks played well enough to win that day. That was a sloppy damn game, and it's a shame, because that team had the talent and firepower to overcome that bad officiating if they'd brought it like they did in the regular season.
 

Missing_Clink

New member
Joined
Mar 12, 2012
Messages
3,287
Reaction score
1
Holmgren is a crappy GM and Front Office guy for sure, but I think its pretty laughable for Jim Brown to suggest in the same breath that he was so loyal to the owner and that is why Holmgren wanted to lower his salary. If the owner loved him so much, all he had to do was tell Mike that nothing would change with Jim Brown and that would have been the end of it.
 

Latest posts

Top