Pete or Holmgren

[Ad Hawk]

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.

 

[hawknation2018]

Pete Carroll - Super Bowl champion, two NFC championships, nine playoffs victories, victories in all six playoff appearances, four division titles, NFL records for most consecutive games coached without losing by more than seven points and by 10 points (he holds these same record at the college level, where he won back-to-back national titles and had seven-consecutive Top 4 finishes), architect of one of the greatest defenses in NFL history, which led the NFL in scoring defense for four-consecutive seasons.

I don’t even know how this is even a debate. But if you come up with a topic, someone on the internet will find a way to debate it.

 

[hawknation2018]

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.

 

[Fade]

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.

Those players are on the roster already if Holmgren takes over in 2012.

My stance is simple.

GIVE HOLMGREN THE SAME COLLECTION OF PLAYERS, AND HE WOULD OF WON MORE SUPERBOWLS.
('12-'16) than Pete Carroll.


Now give Pete Carroll Tim Ruskell without Dan Quinn. How Many Superbowls does he make?

That's right. Carroll hasn't done anything without Dan Quinn as his DC. Dan Quinn took over the floundering Falcons, and got them back into the Superbowl.

Pete Carroll without Dan Quinn. 0 NFC Championships. 0 Superbowls. And a bunch of underachieving teams.

 

[Fade]

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.

Those players are on the roster already if Holmgren takes over in 2012.

My stance is simple.

GIVE HOLMGREN THE SAME COLLECTION OF PLAYERS, AND HE WOULD OF WON MORE SUPERBOWLS.
('12-'16) than Pete Carroll.


Now give Pete Carroll Tim Ruskell without Dan Quinn. How Many Superbowls does he make?

That's right. Carroll hasn't done anything without Dan Quinn as his DC. Dan Quinn took over the floundering Falcons, and got them back into the Superbowl.

Pete Carroll without Dan Quinn. 0 NFC Championships. 0 Superbowls. And a bunch of underachieving teams.

Mike Holmgen as HC. With Dan Quinn as DC = Legendary.

 

[Fade]

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.

 

[pittpnthrs]

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

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

 

[pittpnthrs]

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.

What? Straight laced? He coached Brett Favre for most of his career. QB's are rarely nore reckless than him. Also, Holmgren with Lynch? Forget about it. Seattle would have won more than one because Holmgren wouldnt have passed on the goal line with that crap personnel.

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.

That roster was damn well better than just one title. It got wasted due to bad coaching and the worst play call of all time.

As for SB40, I would like you to name any coach that can beat the refs. Not happening.

 

[Milehighhawk]

This isn't even debatable.The results aren't even close ("What if" games are stupid. 'What was' matters.) and to argue otherwise is completely asinine.

 

[pmedic920]

In terms of a teams talent, doesn’t the coach play a role in that, a substantial role?

Maybe I’m not getting the point folks are trying to make?

Loved Mike, he was a great coach.

Pete, is, and will be the better coach for the Seahawks.

To be honest, I’m surprised at the Question but that’s just me.

 

[Mad Dog]

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

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

Recency bias at work.

Holmgren had plenty of games where he got outcoached near the end of games and lost many a game in which he had a comfortable lead. Holmgren had the advantage of coaching before internet criticism became a monster thing.

Pete had an incredible run of not losing games by more than a single score. When you are in that many close games, decisions are magnified and dissected by the illuminati of the internet. But you can't have his record and success staying in games by being out-coached even game.

Holmgren would not have tolerated a team like the 2012-2015 Seahawks. He'd likely have traded Sherman and Bennett early on for offensive talent. He'd have had issues with Baldwin and Lynch. He'd have not tolerated Wilson's freelance ways, forced him into a pocket role where his height would have become a liability and then moved on.

I love Holmgren but he can't really hold Pete's jockstrap as far as the total package is concerned. Great offensive mind but not a program builder like Pete.

 

[Hawksfan78]

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

Mike had more power over rosters for years and only came up with one Super Bowl team. More than likely mike wouldn’t have picked or played Wilson. Mike was really good for Seattle, however, Pete is better!

 

[NJlargent]

I love the Seahawks but I flat out dislike Pete Carroll.

Holmgren had his own issues, but as Fade said above, Holmgren wins more than one with our 2012 squad. I also believe more than half of the coaches in the NFL currently would have won a SB with our team back then. You just had to let them play and do their thing. We owe that ring to Lynch, Sherman and Wilson. They were the heartbeat of that team. I was always thought we were outcoached in that NFC Championship game and Sherman bailed us out. I also think PC was carried a bit under Dan Quinn (who subsequently brought Atlanta to the SB while we regressed).

Now PC did have a hand in putting that team together. But the question still out there is whether he got lucky or is actually a good talent evaluator. Certainly the past few drafts have been questionable. But I think the next 2 seasons will define PC, and if he is a great coach, he will bring us back. If it "fell into his lap" we will win 7 games the next 2 seasons and PC will leave.

My biggest problem with Carroll is that we regressed after 49 and Pete allowed the regression to continue without making any changes. A great coach hits the brakes at some point and tries something new. Instead we kept the same game plan each game and went as far as tour talent alone would take us, which was getting blown out in the divisional round. That is not great coaching, that is actually poor coaching.

I also think the biggest mistake PC ever made was not tossing Bevell after 49. After XL, Holmgren made the public statement that he did not know we were battling the zebras. It was a dumb move from a global perspective, but it was what the team needed at the time. No doubt he would have said something the day after 49 and would never have tolerated Bevell tossing the Lockette under the bus. I question how people could think PC was a great coach when we had players giving the finger to coaches during games and pushing and shoving on sidelines. And this was not from bums, but our actual star players.

In terms of in game decisions, I think PC is awful. His use of challenges is awful, clock management is awful, and he does some head scratchers like the fake FG from the 40 yard line right before the half. Our teams also never came out ready to play. We sleepwalked though the beginning of many games and were bailed out by a talent laden defense time and time again.

I think we have a very tolerant fan base and perhaps that is a good thing (we certainly have a good home field advantage) but I also think we are too content with having hoisted one trophy and now being "forever grateful" for that. And yes everyone wants to say PC is a great coach because we won 9 playoff games in 8 years (with talent that could have won 12+) but you also cannot ignore how badly we regressed both in terms of success (and got worse each year) and became a locker room of discontent. I don't find that to be a great coach. I am , however, interested to see how PC responds over the next 2 years and whether he builds a good team or continues the regression.

 

[endzorn]

I remember the rumors swirling around Holmgren after the 98 regular season. The game that ended his Green Bay tenure was the Young-to-Owens TD pass in a playoff thriller. Immediately the speculation was Seattle would give the reins to Holmgren and I was jacked. There were plenty of hiccups, but Holmgren brought relevance to Seattle. I loved the guy.

That said...Pete took Seattle from relevance to dominance.

 

[Seymour]

......My biggest problem with Carroll is that we regressed after 49 and Pete allowed the regression to continue without making any changes. A great coach hits the brakes at some point and tries something new. Instead we kept the same game plan each game and went as far as tour talent alone would take us, which was getting blown out in the divisional round. That is not great coaching, that is actually poor coaching......

I agree^^^

First off, the question is not that difficult to answer. Pete earned that distinction. That said, as stated above, I liked Holmgren better, and found him far less irritating to watch and listen to. I won't go so far as to say I dislike Pete, but I get pretty irritated with his lack of response to many different situations. Could even be his over the top liberal nature that rubs me wrong, not sure, but I am grateful for what he brought this city and his record speaks for itself.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

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

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

This makes no sense.

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

Galloway fiasco, poison pill mismanagement with Hutch, signing freaking Michael Sinclair to a 7 year deal, dealing with Jeremy Stevens, some TERRIBLE draft picks (Lamar King?)...........and it took him seven years to get us to a SB, and lost.

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

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

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

The problem Holmy had was he couldn't build a defense.

Plop Holmgren down on the '12 Seahawks the defense is already built. He just has to worry about developing a rookie QB in RW. Which would have gone fantastically imo, because that is what Holmgren's expertise was.

I'd take it from a different angle.

What if Pete/John get Holmgren's teams (and drafts). If Pete has 2 hall of fame OL in their primes and has the league's best rushing attack -- I have zero doubt that he either makes that defense sparkle, or gets UDFA/fresh players to play at their absolute best.

If Pete is coach in XL, there is no way Pittsburgh wins that game. They absolutely do not trump us physically.

If Pete is coach with Holmgren's teams, there is no way the soft Rams of the 2002-2005 era plays our personal boogeymen.

Those teams had plenty of talent on the roster. They didn't have the necessary attitude from the top to excel defensively. It's far easier and quicker to get a young defensive squad up to standard than it is for offense. Pete could have transformed those teams overnight with either the guys they did have, or to quickly add young talent and coach them up.

Mike was very rookiephobic. He didn't trust youth. Pete would have never allowed for some of those aged/underperforming vets to remain on the team. And I have no doubt that he could have made Babineau/Richard (yes that Richard), Trufant, Boulware/Manuel much better and definitely not in a position to lose that super bowl. Pittsburgh won it on big plays. Something Pete would have much more likely prevented.

I think if you give Pete that offense and let him work his magic with a cheap/young defense -- that's a better team than Holmgren with Pete's squad.

It's also worth noting that the CBA landscape was just totally different. Pete's NFL requires extensive use of rookie deal talents. Mike's NFL allowed for keeping veteran talents.

 

[Ad Hawk]

Well said, Attyla.

The problem is that we're assuming the two different coaching philosophies translate directly across to teams neither created. It's a false comparison.

Pete created those '12-'16 teams. Holmgren never would have. Too many variables. Holmgren never won a SB here with his philosophy and team.

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

Well said, Attyla.

The problem is that we're assuming the two different coaching philosophies translate directly across to teams neither created. It's a false comparison.

Pete created those '12-'16 teams. Holmgren never would have. Too many variables. Holmgren never won a SB here with his philosophy and team.

Totally true. This is a stupid excersize. Pete probably gets rid of Tobeck/Gray/Locklear in favor of some crappy athletic DL converts. And then for good measure runs Walter Jones out of town when he did his annual hold out of training camp to send an always compete message.

Each team, for better and worse, assumed the pathos of their head coach. That offense doesn't dominate under Carroll. The Legion of Boom never comes to be and likely never sees the field under Holmgren.

 

[Smellyman]

Pete.


not close