Pete or Holmgren

purpleneer

New member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
331
Reaction score
1
Location
The Green Lantern (almost)
KiwiHawk":1prgjqxu said:
purpleneer":1prgjqxu said:
KiwiHawk":1prgjqxu said:
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.
 

KiwiHawk

New member
Joined
May 4, 2009
Messages
4,203
Reaction score
1
Location
Auckland, New Zealand
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.
 

Fade

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2014
Messages
5,454
Reaction score
2,988
Location
Truth Ray
KiwiHawk":3eg8tyvv said:
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.

Ruskell hated taking O-Lineman in the 1st round. I think Chris Spencer was his only 1st rd lineman.

It wouldn't of mattered anyway. Ruskell is one of the all-time worst drafters ever. He hit with Tatupu & drafted LeRoy Hill in the 3rd in 2005. It was all down hill from there. The 2009 Seahawks are the least talented team I have ever seen this franchise field. A bad division & Hasselbeck propped them up to 5-11. A team with 0 Pro-bowlers, undersized, slow, soft, & injury prone. Pathetic.

So I think people are blurring Ruskell with Holmgren. Don't get it twisted Holmgren more often than not got the most out of his players. His teams played disciplined football, didn't commit penalties, and overall was a no nonsense coach. That "me" attitude that got out of hand and Pete couldn't control. So he had to fire everyone. Holmy would've handled it better, and the team would've been centered around RW, not the Defense by year 3. (After the Superbowl.) What needed to happen to move the franchise forward. Instead of the team regressing for 4 STRAIGHT SEASONS. Rolling out the same under performing coaching staff expecting a different result. Pissing away a would be dynasty. Holmgren > Carroll.
 

Spin Doctor

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
5,254
Reaction score
2,226
Holmgren was much better when it came to discipline, in game adjustments, and initial game plan. I think he was the superior "coach". Where Pete has the advantage was his talent for scouting playeres. Carroll was responsible for building that team. Carroll is involved in many different operations on the Seahawks. For most of Holmgrens career he wasn't responsible for acquiring talent, which is actually the case for many coaches in the NFL. Coaches that have the freedom that Carroll has are rare.
 

purpleneer

New member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
331
Reaction score
1
Location
The Green Lantern (almost)
Fade":3ir5ztdt said:
So I think people are blurring Ruskell with Holmgren. Don't get it twisted Holmgren more often than not got the most out of his players. His teams played disciplined football, didn't commit penalties, and overall was a no nonsense coach. That "me" attitude that got out of hand and Pete couldn't control. So he had to fire everyone. Holmy would've handled it better, and the team would've been centered around RW, not the Defense by year 3. (After the Superbowl.) What needed to happen to move the franchise forward. Instead of the team regressing for 4 STRAIGHT SEASONS. Rolling out the same under performing coaching staff expecting a different result. Pissing away a would be dynasty. Holmgren > Carroll.
I couldn't disagree more about Holmy consistently getting the best from his players. Regression? You mean to 12, 10, and 10 wins and a return to the Super Bowl? I'll take that over the immediate drop to 9-7 and then to 4-12 in year 3. Carroll didn't drop below 10 wins for 3 years after winning it all. Holmgren didn't beat 10 wins in any year other than 2005. He got to 10 a total of 3 times in 10 years, and he came into a situation where 8-8 got the coach fired. You could take out PC's title season and MH's worst season and PC still has a better record and more playoff wins.
 

hawknation2018

New member
Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
3,082
Reaction score
0
In addition to winning the Seahawks’ only Super Bowl and nine playoff games and counting, he also constructed a philosophy and defensive scheme that are now being copied all around the NFL. I don’t think the 49ers have been made fun of enough for blatantly trying to imitate Carroll’s philosophy.
 

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
25,560
Reaction score
7,616
Fade":2ns8abdb said:
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.

There was no Tim Ruskell until Holmgren had his GM duties stripped because Allen no longer trusted him to draft and manage the cap/personnel.

So yes, that goes into the discussion when comparing Pete and Mike.
 

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
25,560
Reaction score
7,616
KiwiHawk":3ih9dvs1 said:
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.
 

pittpnthrs

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2017
Messages
5,408
Reaction score
1,956
scutterhawk":1euyla06 said:
Fade":1euyla06 said:
Holmgren was anal about having his instructions followed, so when Matt Hasselbeck tried doing things HIS OWN WAY, Mike Holmgren curbed him to clip board duties, and played Trent Dilfer in his stead.

Thats because there wasnt a large talent discrepancy between the two of them. I doubt Favre or Wilson would be holding a clipboard.
 

sc85sis

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
8,522
Reaction score
1,382
Location
Houston Suburbs
Fade":3mjkgjqd said:
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.
 

hawknation2018

New member
Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
3,082
Reaction score
0
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
 

KiwiHawk

New member
Joined
May 4, 2009
Messages
4,203
Reaction score
1
Location
Auckland, New Zealand
Sgt. Largent":3uzw8dwh said:
KiwiHawk":3uzw8dwh said:
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.
 

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
25,560
Reaction score
7,616
KiwiHawk":55vfe7ur said:
Sgt. Largent":55vfe7ur said:
KiwiHawk":55vfe7ur said:
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.
 

Fade

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2014
Messages
5,454
Reaction score
2,988
Location
Truth Ray
hawknation2018":e7mqn15d said:
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
 

Ad Hawk

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2011
Messages
3,214
Reaction score
436
Fade":7guecry9 said:
hawknation2018":7guecry9 said:
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.
 

mrt144

New member
Joined
Dec 30, 2010
Messages
4,065
Reaction score
0
Ad Hawk":2xvhonv1 said:
Fade":2xvhonv1 said:
hawknation2018":2xvhonv1 said:
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.
 

hawknation2018

New member
Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
3,082
Reaction score
0
Fade":24g7b2g5 said:
hawknation2018":24g7b2g5 said:
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.
 

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
25,560
Reaction score
7,616
Fade":18ruzko6 said:
hawknation2018":18ruzko6 said:
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.
 

Fade

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2014
Messages
5,454
Reaction score
2,988
Location
Truth Ray
Sgt. Largent":1xgbjq94 said:
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.
 

Latest posts

Top