Should Holmgren be added to the Ring of Honor?

[kidhawk]

I really like Holgrem, but I think hes a tad overrated. My reasons:

1) He benefited greatly from division realignment. The NFC West has pretty much been a joke in the 00's with the exception of a few teams on different years.
2) His record isnt anything spectacular during that time at 86-74
3) A single NFC Title is all his accolades during that time (I dont count div titles). And where thats still good, show me another teams ring of honor coach with something less.

Guy did good things for seattle and had a great tenure here, but honestly, I think because we were smacked around in the AFC West for so long, we want to praise him to early. Give it 10 more years and we'll see what the Hawks accomplishments are. If we havent been able to top what he did, then by default, I guess he could join the ring.

This isn't another team's ring of honor this is OUR ring of honor. From where we were before he came to where we were when he left, he took us a VERY long ways. He has done things for this no organization that no coach has done before or since. He belongs more than anyone. We're not talking about the NFL hall of fame here, this is the Seahawks Ring of Honor. If Holmgren doesn't belong, nobody does.

Thats kinda my point. At this point in our history, for coaches wise, I dont feel anyone belongs. Just because he was the best outta the bunch doesnt sway me.

We're not talking about the Hall of Fame or retiring numbers here, this is a ring of honor. You honor those that mean the most to the franchise. Holmgren fits every criteria there is for a Ring of honor.

 

[Cartire]

I really like Holgrem, but I think hes a tad overrated. My reasons:

1) He benefited greatly from division realignment. The NFC West has pretty much been a joke in the 00's with the exception of a few teams on different years.
2) His record isnt anything spectacular during that time at 86-74
3) A single NFC Title is all his accolades during that time (I dont count div titles). And where thats still good, show me another teams ring of honor coach with something less.

Guy did good things for seattle and had a great tenure here, but honestly, I think because we were smacked around in the AFC West for so long, we want to praise him to early. Give it 10 more years and we'll see what the Hawks accomplishments are. If we havent been able to top what he did, then by default, I guess he could join the ring.

This drives me crazy. The guy coached here for a decade. I get you're not a huge fan, but at least get his dang name right. HOLMGREN. It's not Holgrem, Holcrum, Holcran, Holgrum, or even Holdjfaksjfjt. HOLMGREN.

I guess thats a valid argument.... or i was just typeing fast and didnt care that much for the mistake... But if thats the best arguement for the ring of honor, then thats the best argument.

 

[Cartire]

We're not talking about the Hall of Fame or retiring numbers here, this is a ring of honor. You honor those that mean the most to the franchise. Holmgren fits every criteria there is for a Ring of honor.

Except like others have already mentioned, were ready to put people into the ring too fast. It loses a lot of its merit when we jump the gun and put people in to fast. This is also coming from someone who thinks that it should be a minimum 10 years before HOF eligibility. Faces are too fresh in our memory to objectively judge them. The question here did offer the choice to say no. Im just defending my reasoning with that choice. I do set the bar high though. Others may not agree with my standards, but they are high.

 

[kidhawk]

We're not talking about the Hall of Fame or retiring numbers here, this is a ring of honor. You honor those that mean the most to the franchise. Holmgren fits every criteria there is for a Ring of honor.

Except like others have already mentioned, were ready to put people into the ring too fast. It loses a lot of its merit when we jump the gun and put people in to fast. This is also coming from someone who thinks that it should be a minimum 10 years before HOF eligibility. Faces are too fresh in our memory to objectively judge them. The question here did offer the choice to say no. Im just defending my reasoning with that choice. I do set the bar high though. Others may not agree with my standards, but they are high.

If we are putting people in the ring of honor to fast and without proper merit, who is in our current ring that you don't agree with and why (Besides knox, as you've already mentioned this one)

 

[Zebulon Dak]

Anybody who doesn't think the most successful coach in this franchise's almost 40 year history deserves to have his name up at the stadium is crazy. This league isn't likely to even last another 40 years and though we do plan on winning multiple championships and adding quite a few guys from the current roster to the list in that time, I don't think we're anywhere near being in danger of running out of room.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Nope, didn't win the a Super Bowl. I know Knox is up there...but I don't think he should be either. Im not a fan of "everyone gets a trophy".

 

[Subzero717]

I really don't see how 6 divisions anf a conference championship doesn't merit ROH. If that isn't good enough then do away with it and just retire tje numbers of those that make the Hall of Fame. Also take the 12 down because they haven't done enough to earn that either.

 

[Zebulon Dak]

Nope, didn't win the a Super Bowl. I know Knox is up there...but I don't think he should be either.

So you think our ring of honor should have nobody on it?

 

[volsunghawk]

We are going to have to get a bigger stadium for all the people we keep adding.

Maybe lower the font size?

We're at 10.

We haven't added anyone since 2006.

Maybe in the early days, the team was too eager to develop their identity and recognize the main contributors who helped turn the team from an expansion club into a legitimate NFL franchise, but why does that have to prevent newer and more accomplished additions? :|

EDIT: Oh, and if you want to talk about too many players, check out the Bills or Packers or Redskins honorariums. If you want to talk about players with questionable credentials being allowed into a "ring of honor," check out the Colts' listing.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Nope, didn't win the a Super Bowl. I know Knox is up there...but I don't think he should be either.

So you think our ring of honor should have nobody on it?

Not any coaches. Im fine with players making the ROH without a championship as their acceptance criteria is clearly different from coaches, just look at the HOF to understand that.

 

[Zebulon Dak]

Nope, didn't win the a Super Bowl. I know Knox is up there...but I don't think he should be either.

So you think our ring of honor should have nobody on it?

Not any coaches. Im fine with players making the ROH without a championship as their acceptance criteria is clearly different from coaches, just look at the HOF to understand that.

That's fair, I suppose. I still think in our case it should be relative. We may not have any championships yet but that doesn't mean we don't have guys that are worthy of recognition and celebration.

 

[Tech Worlds]

We are going to have to get a bigger stadium for all the people we keep adding.

Maybe lower the font size?

We're at 10.

We haven't added anyone since 2006.

Maybe in the early days, the team was too eager to develop their identity and recognize the main contributors who helped turn the team from an expansion club into a legitimate NFL franchise, but why does that have to prevent newer and more accomplished additions? :|

EDIT: Oh, and if you want to talk about too many players, check out the Bills or Packers or Redskins honorariums. If you want to talk about players with questionable credentials being allowed into a "ring of honor," check out the Colts' listing.

So because they do it we should too?

Just my opinion that's all. I think it should be a bigger deal and not just dolled out. It should be more special.

Again... Just my preference. Not that my preference means squat.

 

[volsunghawk]

We are going to have to get a bigger stadium for all the people we keep adding.

Maybe lower the font size?

We're at 10.

We haven't added anyone since 2006.

Maybe in the early days, the team was too eager to develop their identity and recognize the main contributors who helped turn the team from an expansion club into a legitimate NFL franchise, but why does that have to prevent newer and more accomplished additions? :|

EDIT: Oh, and if you want to talk about too many players, check out the Bills or Packers or Redskins honorariums. If you want to talk about players with questionable credentials being allowed into a "ring of honor," check out the Colts' listing.

So because they do it we should too?

Just my opinion that's all. I think it should be a bigger deal and not just dolled out. It should be more special.

Again... Just my preference. Not that my preference means squat.

Just pointing out that it's not out of the ordinary for teams to have many players, coaches, and personnel in their histories that they feel deserve the honor. There doesn't appear to be any kind of upper bound that suggests you have to be really careful about how many honors you give out.

I think the fact that Holmgren was the head coach during the team's (to date) most successful era, leading them to a SB appearance, well, that's about as big a deal as any person we've got in the Ring of Honor. You could argue that Tez, Largent, and Easley were definitely more deserving, but who else can you justify getting that nod over Holmgren?

 

[Tech Worlds]

I got nothing against Holmgren getting in. I wouldn't do it for another 7 to 10 years though.

I think the criteria isn't as high as what I would prefer so I suppose he is as good a candidate as any.

As far as your question... Knox was a better coach.

 

[Subzero717]

I got nothing against Holmgren getting in. I wouldn't do it for another 7 to 10 years though.

I think the criteria isn't as high as what I would prefer so I suppose he is as good a candidate as any.

As far as your question... Knox was a better coach.

So should Knox be in? I don't think Knox was a better coach.

I think Holmgren gets scrutinised because his teams had a "finese" label and over look the end result. -

 

[hawker84]

I think we should be the first franchise to 100!

Josh Brown anyone? Kazavinski? Don't forget Tatupu!

Dr. Dan Doornink?

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

Yes. He put us on the National stage for the first time.

 

[nIdahoSeahawk]

Best coach we ever had until proven otherwise (please pete!)

Of course he deserves it

 

[Subzero717]

Nope, didn't win the a Super Bowl. I know Knox is up there...but I don't think he should be either.

So you think our ring of honor should have nobody on it?

Not any coaches. Im fine with players making the ROH without a championship as their acceptance criteria is clearly different from coaches, just look at the HOF to understand that.

Fair point but it is a ROH not the HOF. Plus, Knox is in so the criteria has been set already.

 

[Cartire]

Fair point but it is a ROH not the HOF. Plus, Knox is in so the criteria has been set already.

In that case, were in for a long haul of mediocre people getting in. I think we will be first to 100 after all.