Lot of talk about Holmgren, but..

[Maelstrom787]

C'mon. It wasn't all peachy keen. 2004, pre-Super Bowl run.

Same "purgatory." Same city. 6-6, disappointed, and embarrassed at points.

This is why I can't get all salty about any of this. It takes literally one year to turn it ALL around. Mike did after 6 seasons of...

*checks notes*

Oh man lol, I'd love to see 2023 .NET (and the Seahawks fanbase at large, not just the board here) react to these records

9-7
6-10
9-7
7-9
10-6
9-7

From 1999-2004. Most of that stretch he was general manager, which is even MORE personnel power than Pete exercises.

C'mon, guys. Come ON. You wouldn't stand for it today, and you know it! Yet, get this - IT PAID OFF FOR US!

ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN. ANYTHING. None of this "um, it actually doesn't matter, none of it matters because Pete."

WE HAVE SEEN IT HAPPEN BEFORE!

Let's get reasonable here. The world is not ending because of a few middling seasons. This is not as bad as it can get - go ask like 27 other franchises who've had it worse.

And, yes, there is still a reason to watch and cheer with intrigue. The Seahawks are not governed by idiots, and no, Paul Allen wouldn't have fired Carroll "immediately after the 2018 playoff game" as many have implied. Again, we've seen this before.

I'm tired of the prominent discourse in this fanbase implying that this is all predetermined to end in misery unless everything is blown up. That's a bunch of foolhardy sour grapes shite. Sorry. "Purgatory" before led to the first real shot this team ever had at a Super Bowl, and you know what they changed to catalyze that run? Lmao nothing, except making Holmgren hire a real GM, and then still nothing for years. We have a real GM who makes the majority of draft decisions, according to pretty much every insider report about how the current Seahawks FO works.

Just step back from the doomscroll echo chamber and look back at what we're reminiscing on as glory days. Lotta "Wish Holmgren was back" stuff here lately. Do you really? I love Holmgren, but given his record... wasn't he just as unacceptable as Pete supposedly is?

Would you reeeally tolerate the first 6 years Holmgren put up here again? And given what he did after those 6 years of "purgatory"... can you really pretend to know that the team is doomed if they don't blow it up?

 

[Maelstrom787]

There's a very, very real concept that I think we've been conditioned to forget, and that's the concept of...

"No team in a league of parity is a contender every year, and it's insane to expect that or anything close to it."

Guys. The Tom Brady Patriots went a literal decade between titles. That's the same as 2013-now, for perspective.

 

[HawkFreak]

There's a very, very real concept that I think we've been conditioned to forget, and that's the concept of...

"No team in a league of parity is a contender every year, and it's insane to expect that or anything close to it."

Guys. The Tom Brady Patriots went a literal decade between titles. That's the same as 2013-now, for perspective.

This isn't quite the same helpful perspective comparison. Before that 10 year gap between championsships...the Patriots had just finished winning 3 of the previous 4 years.

Maybe if the Seahawks had more than 1 championship win ever and hadn't wasted a potential "dynasty" and back to back wins then this lapse in championships might possibly be tolerated a little better overall with fans.

Amd for the record...I personally don't want Holmgren back.

 

[Cyrus12]

We had our time as short-lived as it was. Shoulda had at least one more Lombardi if not 2 more. Just a team in flux at the moment that can go either way in the next few years.

 

[pittpnthrs]

So much to say about it all, but not enough energy to do so. I'll just say that Holmgren was trying to build something in Seattle and struggled for awhile because he was in over his head. He wasn't GM material. Whitsitt knew it and so did Mike. He had too much to concentrate on when coaching is all he should have been doing. Once he got his head on straight, he took Seattle to a Super Bowl. Things happened like the Hutchinson deal and Alexander wanting paid and getting hurt. The team went into a spiral and did the right thing,,,,,,he stepped down. He knew it was time. Pete doesn't recognize it's time for him.

As it goes, if we are picking either of them to just coach a group of players, I would take Holmgren every single time x's 1000000.

 

[pittpnthrs]

Oh, if we are asking if I want Holmgren back now,,,,,hell no. Game has changed to much.

 

[Maelstrom787]

So much to say about it all, but not enough energy to do so. I'll just say that Holmgren was trying to build something in Seattle and struggled for awhile because he was in over his head. He wasn't GM material. Whitsitt knew it and so did Mike. He had too much to concentrate on when coaching is all he should have been doing. Once he got his head on straight, he took Seattle to a Super Bowl. Things happened like the Hutchinson deal and Alexander wanting paid and getting hurt. The team went into a spiral and did the right thing,,,,,,he stepped down. He knew it was time. Pete doesn't recognize it's time for him.

As it goes, if we are picking either of them to just coach a group of players, I would take Holmgren every single time x's 1000000.

That was 4 and freaking 12, though. 2004 is a lot more reminiscent of the current spiral.

 

[Cyrus12]

Was Hass really much better in comparison to Geno? He used to make some dumb decisions with the football. The oline that Holmgren put together was all world though. I liked Holmgren as a coach and missed him when he left but not sure he was any better or worse than Pete. Different era and team.

 

[pittpnthrs]

That was 4 and freaking 12, though. 2004 is a lot more reminiscent of the current spiral.

Your talking about a very small sample size compared to 9 years though Mael. Not sure why your hung up on 2004 either. They won the division that year and lost a wild card game as they did the year before. There was no big slide there or anything. The next year they went to the Super Bowl.

 

[Maelstrom787]

Your talking about a very small sample size compared to 9 years though Mael. Not sure why your hung up on 2004 either. They won the division that year and lost a wild card game as they did the year before. There was no big slide there or anything. The next year they went to the Super Bowl.

I'm hung up on 2004 because it is the best analogue to the current state of the franchise. The dreaded "purgatory."

In 2004, they had a totally middling year (and get this, unlike now they were in a cupcake division). Several embarrassing losses. Blown leads. Went to the playoffs, got beat by an 8-8 division opponent that swept them in the regular season.

I'm not talking about a small sample size. I'm talking about the same type of results you describe as some sort of existential horror under Pete being achieved under a different guy previously, consistently, for YEARS - and then, you know, it all changed.

6 years of nothin' except a mostly-worse version of what we currently go through. And then, bam. The right unit gets going in the right way, and we're contending.

My point is that the depressive proselytizing of "oh, it's bad, and it can never get better unless leadership changes" isn't realism. It's... well, depressive proselytizing. We ignore a lot of previous scenarios just to spout stormclouds out of our keyboards, when the truth is right there.

It's been this way before, and no one here can say with any sort of certainty that it isn't in constant, unremitting danger of turning into something better. Despite this, people try, many of whom brand themselves as realists or experts. "Truth tellers."

Well, what I've said is all true too, and we've got the plain and simple facts to prove it.

 

[pittpnthrs]

I'm hung up on 2004 because it is the best analogue to the current state of the franchise. The dreaded "purgatory."

In 2004, they had a totally middling year (and get this, unlike now they were in a cupcake division). Several embarrassing losses. Blown leads. Went to the playoffs, got beat by an 8-8 division opponent that swept them in the regular season.

I'm not talking about a small sample size. I'm talking about the same type of results you describe as some sort of existential horror under Pete being achieved under a different guy previously, consistently, for YEARS - and then, you know, it all changed.

6 years of nothin' except a mostly-worse version of what we currently go through. And then, bam. The right unit gets going in the right way, and we're contending.

My point is that the depressive proselytizing of "oh, it's bad, and it can never get better unless leadership changes" isn't realism. It's... well, depressive proselytizing. We ignore a lot of previous scenarios just to spout stormclouds out of our keyboards, when the truth is right there.

It's been this way before, and no one here can say with any sort of certainty that it isn't in constant, unremitting danger of turning into something better. Despite this, people try, many of whom brand themselves as realists or experts. "Truth tellers."

Well, what I've said is all true too, and we've got the plain and simple facts to prove it.

Ok Mael, I guess the big question is do you think Pete is going to turn it all around and do something great again? At 72? I see a ton of differences in the examples your using.

 

[morgulon1]

C'mon. It wasn't all peachy keen. 2004, pre-Super Bowl run.

Same "purgatory." Same city. 6-6, disappointed, and embarrassed at points.

This is why I can't get all salty about any of this. It takes literally one year to turn it ALL around. Mike did after 6 seasons of...

*checks notes*

Oh man lol, I'd love to see 2023 .NET (and the Seahawks fanbase at large, not just the board here) react to these records

9-7
6-10
9-7
7-9
10-6
9-7

From 1999-2004. Most of that stretch he was general manager, which is even MORE personnel power than Pete exercises.

C'mon, guys. Come ON. You wouldn't stand for it today, and you know it! Yet, get this - IT PAID OFF FOR US!

ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN. ANYTHING. None of this "um, it actually doesn't matter, none of it matters because Pete."

WE HAVE SEEN IT HAPPEN BEFORE!

Let's get reasonable here. The world is not ending because of a few middling seasons. This is not as bad as it can get - go ask like 27 other franchises who've had it worse.

And, yes, there is still a reason to watch and cheer with intrigue. The Seahawks are not governed by idiots, and no, Paul Allen wouldn't have fired Carroll "immediately after the 2018 playoff game" as many have implied. Again, we've seen this before.

I'm tired of the prominent discourse in this fanbase implying that this is all predetermined to end in misery unless everything is blown up. That's a bunch of foolhardy sour grapes shite. Sorry. "Purgatory" before led to the first real shot this team ever had at a Super Bowl, and you know what they changed to catalyze that run? Lmao nothing, except making Holmgren hire a real GM, and then still nothing for years. We have a real GM who makes the majority of draft decisions, according to pretty much every insider report about how the current Seahawks FO works.

Just step back from the doomscroll echo chamber and look back at what we're reminiscing on as glory days. Lotta "Wish Holmgren was back" stuff here lately. Do you really? I love Holmgren, but given his record... wasn't he just as unacceptable as Pete supposedly is?

Would you reeeally tolerate the first 6 years Holmgren put up here again? And given what he did after those 6 years of "purgatory"... can you really pretend to know that the team is doomed if they don't blow it up?

To answer your question directly, no I don't want Holmgren back. He put together an excellent offense but the defenses suffered to an extent. I don't know what it is with all these coaches wanting to be GM . It would seem to be too much IMHO.

The problem I see is that the league has changed . Pete hasn't adjusted and he doesn't have the same level of players he had before.That old scheme of his worked when he had Richard Sherman ,Earl Thomas and a 23 year old Bobby Wagner . I don't see things working out any differently than the last 6-8 seasons.

I like your enthusiasm though.

 

[Ozzy]

Yeah this doesn’t really move the needle for me. I think Pete is a great coach who at this point in his career caps the Seahawks and I’m not sure it gets better before it gets worse. I think it’s pretty obvious at this point. He’s an all time great who brought us the greatest stretch of football in franchise history but it’s stale and a change is needed in my opinion.

 

[Jerhawk]

I appreciate the optimism but I don't see the comparison.

Hass, Alexander, Jones, Trufant and other contributors were all relatively young. Lofa wasn't even in the picture yet. Joe was brought in as a free agent. But we could all feel the team going in a direction even in 2004. We knew that Holmgren was building this thing. Once Dilfer was let go it really allowed Hass to grow into his own

Now, we've got question marks at QB, the O line appears to have taken a step back, the defense is still a dumpster fire. Holmgren was much more willing to adapt and adjust than Carroll.

 

[NoGain]

Sometimes you just have to know when it's time for a change. It's not an exact science. It's intuitive as much as anything.

 

[Seahawk_Dan]

I don't think anyone would actually take Holmgren back even if he was available, willing, or 30 years younger. It's more like the guy knew when it was ready to hang it up. Hell, same thing with Bill Cowher, another all-time great coach that realized that his time had passed. Pete is seemingly refusing this. It's very much, "Hello my fellow kids".

 

[NoGain]

If I had to guess, things would have been different had Paul Allen remained alive with his mental faculties about him. We're really in a precarious situation with Jodi Allen in charge of the franchise now. It's pretty clear to me that she kept PC/JS on because she felt they would provide enough stability until the time came for her to sell the franchise. She was right about that in a way. But it came at the cost of giving PC too much power without much constructive oversight.

Does anyone truly feel that ownership has any idea about what to do until the franchise is eventually sold as concerns any change of direction it might take until such a time comes? I don't. This ownership is almost ghostly to me in that way. I don't want a meddlesome owner, but I do want one capable of making assessments about the performance and direction of the franchise. I don't get any feeling whatsoever about any of these things from ownership.

This is not a stable ownership now. And PC/JS seem kind of like a place holding, default circumstance in that way. There's too much trust and not enough oversight, a seemingly lack of check and balances, another voice at the table.

 

[NoGain]

PS> In case anyone didn't know, the franchise would not be sold until summer of 2024 at the absolute earliest, and probably not for spell after that. According to the the stadium deal that Paul Allen signed in 1997, 10% of the sale price of the team would be owed to the state of Washington if the team is sold before May of 2024. That part of the agreement is void after that date.

So it's hard to envision any kind of major changes within the franchise until 2025. It takes time to get all your ducks in a row to sell a franchise. Why would ownership move on from either PC or JS when the attempt to sell the franchise could be in the works as early as 2025? It is stated in Paul Allen's will, however, that he did want the franchise sold in the event of his passing away.

Anyway...

 

[keasley45]

That was 4 and freaking 12, though. 2004 is a lot more reminiscent of the current spiral.

Exactly. Holmgren stepped aside because the team had become a dumpster fire. Completely.

 

[keasley45]

I appreciate the optimism but I don't see the comparison.

Hass, Alexander, Jones, Trufant and other contributors were all relatively young. Lofa wasn't even in the picture yet. Joe was brought in as a free agent. But we could all feel the team going in a direction even in 2004. We knew that Holmgren was building this thing. Once Dilfer was let go it really allowed Hass to grow into his own

Now, we've got question marks at QB, the O line appears to have taken a step back, the defense is still a dumpster fire. Holmgren was much more willing to adapt and adjust than Carroll.

I dont remember feeling like we were on the verge of winning a championship. Maybe you did. But my memory goes something like this - yeah, we had a talented team, but a defense that couldn't stop folks and an offense that for all its power, let opposing teams hang around too long because of holmgrens insistence on throwing the ball all the time.

That, and, until the division imploded, we struggled to gain a consistent foothold. Our superbowl season we were gifted with a division that saw the second place team go 6-10... 7 games behind us. So by my recollection, it was as much about the division being a dumpster fire than anything. The next 2 years we won the division with the 2nd place team no better than 8-8. In 2006 we were 9-7, one game better than the definition of average. Had Holmgren had to contend with the monster the 49ers were when we won our championship(s) with Pete , no superbowl. If he had to deal with the teams the 9ers and Rams are now, no championship. Fact is, we locked down the 1 seed in 2005 because we walked through an NFC West that was atrocious.