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/

At least the last 2 or 3 years in Seattle.

I'm with ya DTex.

As much as I appreciate Holmgren for what he did here, it always felt to me like his teams just seemed to underachieve.

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?

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.

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 wrote: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.

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.

Spounge84 wrote: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?

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.

SmokinHawk wrote: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.

Sarlacc83 wrote:

SmokinHawk wrote: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.

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.

hawker84 wrote:

Spounge84 wrote: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.

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?

Smoking needs to knock the "good poster" gimmick off, immediately. I hate appreciating his contributions.

Jerhawk wrote: 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.

hawker84 wrote:

Spounge84 wrote: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.

Vols, knock it off.

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.

Just watched holmgren sound fx today. He was a pompous ass of a man but he was a great coach.

I've never been a big Holmgren fan.

It was fun that one year when we were good and went to the super bowl, but other than that I felt like his teams under performed, had loads of dropped passes, gave up too many big plays, and had me scratching my head too much.

Then he runs the team into the ground on the way out for his sabbatical. Also, it was his sabbatical that lead to Jim Mora being hired as the Seahawks head coach instead of becoming the next coach for UW.

I also never cared for his lack of emotion in games.

I talked with a player once who played for holmgren, he said most players had zero respect for Mike, that he was the laziest coach he ever played for. That he was always the last person to work and the first to leave and he delegated most of his work to other coaches, etc.

He had some great stories and was mostly positive, he was just really down on Holmgren and he didnt like Shaun Alexander much either, thought he was soft.

Seatown001 wrote:I talked with a player once who played for holmgren, he said most players had zero respect for Mike, that he was the laziest coach he ever played for. That he was always the last person to work and the first to leave and he delegated most of his work to other coaches, etc.

He had some great stories and was mostly positive, he was just really down on Holmgren and he didnt like Shaun Alexander much either, thought he was soft.

I have heard the same.

To me the biggest difference between Holmgren and Carroll is Carroll's flexibility in changing to meet the needs of the modern game. And I think that is a direct result of Carroll's "demotion" to the college ranks.

Holmgren won in GB and was paid more than any other coach in the league at the time to come to Seattle and replicate that success. His position was as a proven NFL winning coach and he tried to replicate his Green Bay days in Seattle: build the offense first through the draft, patch the defense with free agent spackle, and go! Of course he had some questionable draft selections along the way which slowed our progress (and even he admitted later that he should have focused on the defense with draft picks first since it's a quicker repair than the offense). But the expectations of him being an offensive guru (and the hubris that came along with that designation) directed him to keep treading familiar ground instead of trying something new.

Carroll was a coach trying to get back into the NFL after finding success in college, and I think this time around he understands that you have to fit the system to the players, not the other way around. You only get a brief window of opportunity at the NFL level so you better do everything you can to succeed, even if it means thinking outside the box! This flexibility meant fixing the D priority #1 (helps that he's a defensive coach of course), then concentrate on finding a QB and building the O-line to cement the offense.

My opinion of Holmgren has changed only because PC/JS have made it look so easy. At the time I thought Holmgren was doing a good job because he was--compared to the crap we did the decade prior. Only now am I able to see that Holmgren was a below average GM and an above average, but flawed, head coach.

I'm beginning to feel like I always imagined Bill Simmons and the NE fans feel. They went from having zero expectations because they sucked for 30 years to expecting excellence every single year. Looking forward to feeling this way for at least another dozen years thanks to the excellent work this front office has done!