Lot of talk about Holmgren, but..

[Shanegotyou11]

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?

Weird, I have said this numerous times about Holmgren and for Ms baseball in Pinella. Social media would cook both of them.

Thanks for the proof.

 

[pittpnthrs]

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

Lol. No he didn't. That so called dumpster fire was 10-6 just a year earlier. He stepped down because his contract was up and he knew it was time, plus Cleveland offered him the house.

 

[pittpnthrs]

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.

Lol. Only Pete and his Seahawk teams ever truly earned what they got right? If the 2005 Seahawks were so bad, how did they possibly make it through the playoffs that year?

 

[bmorepunk]

Holmgren is similar to the other long term coaches we still see, including Carroll. Dude is "good" until things line up then he can be "great".

People understandably think getting a different (<young/innovative>) coach could be better. It could. It's not the most likely event. There's a lot more Nathaniel Hacketts out there than there are Sean McVays. After being in the Denver metro since their Super Bowl win and watching what they've gone through with coaches and QBs, I have a good reminder of just how dysfunctional a team can get. The Broncos are back with an old coach who has a lot of parallels to Carroll. That team is already doing better than it has the last seven years with all the new coach hires.

If Carroll gets the right personnel (including a QB) at the right time he can take it to the house. This isn't true for most coaches. Andy Reid was "good" for a long time until he got enough defensive pieces and a stellar QB. Bill Belechick is sucking it up without a QB. Carroll got the right QB and defensive personnel before.

He's most likely just going to be "good". That probably doesn't result in a Super Bowl. But any other move the team makes probably doesn't, either. It's actually super hard to win them and people forget this.

Some people are really into high risk/high reward propositions; I'd call them gamblers. I'm guessing there's a high correlation here to people who are engaged in financial speculation. Sometimes you win big but you're probably going to get your butt handed to you.

 

[GeekHawk]

This is a good thread, without the usual hyperbole. Please carry on.

 

[keasley45]

Lol. Only Pete and his Seahawk teams ever truly earned what they got right? If the 2005 Seahawks were so bad, how did they possibly make it through the playoffs that year?

I didnt say they were so bad. You keep on thinking I'm in love with Pete and it's spilling over into this thread. I said i didnt recall Holmgren's team 'building' to any grand accomplishment on the horizon. Part of that was because the defense was rarely reliable, and Hass was so damn hot/cold.

They were a good team in a horrendous division that year. Horrendous. And it was bad the year after as well. And average tge year after that.

Honestly, if the 2005 Hawks played the 2013 team, who do you think wins? That's pretty obvious, no?

It's just historical fact that the 2005 NFC West was about as bad a division, and easy path to the post season as any in recent history. That's not to say we weren't good. But there's a reason why the 1 seed in the playoffs is so coveted. You have to win 2 games... at home, to go to the dance. That was it. The LOB Hawks teams that advanced to the Superbowl had to contend with the Niners every year, who at the time, had just come off of a SB loss. Those games against them were considered heavyweight bouts and at the time, we were the best rivalry in the league.

In 2005, we still had to win those playoff games, and we did. I just didn't go into that season thinking - this is our year. I didn't feel like that until week 10 or so. And I certainly didn't feel like that the following year.

It's not a bad thing that a good team gets to beat up on bad teams and make the playoffs. I mean, had the Patriots played in a tougher division than the cakewalk they had every year, woukd they have won all of those titles? Me thinks, no. They got fat off of lambs the majority of their championship years. Nobody says they arent great because of that. They won it all, and in 2005, we should have as well.

 

[keasley45]

Lol. No he didn't. That so called dumpster fire was 10-6 just a year earlier. He stepped down because his contract was up and he knew it was time, plus Cleveland offered him the house.

Pitt, they were 4 and 12. I was having flashbacks of the Dennis Erickson teams... the worst of them. He didn't step aside out of some altruistic duty, he wanted full control again and didn't want to contend with a rebuild. Hiw does that qualify as 'doing the right thing'? He did what was good for him and left the team at the lowest point they'd been since the dark years... until Mora Jr came along and made the pit of despair a little deeper.

I personally think the job he did in 99 was more impressive than anything he did after (2005 aside). His teams just never gave me that feeling that we were going to win, no matter what.

On the flip, when Pete came in I thought we'd make the dance Russ's rookie year, until Clem went down in the playoffs. I thought for sure we'd be there at the end the following year and then again the year we lost to the Pat's. And we were still good enough to go for a year or two after, but the wheels came off. Never had that feeling with Mike's teams.

 

[pittpnthrs]

Pitt, they were 4 and 12. I was having flashbacks of the Dennis Erickson teams... the worst of them. He didn't step aside out of some altruistic duty, he wanted full control again and didn't want to contend with a rebuild. Hiw does that qualify as 'doing the right thing'? He did what was good for him and left the team at the lowest point they'd been since the dark years... until Mora Jr came along and made the pit of despair a little deeper.

I personally think the job he did in 99 was more impressive than anything he did after (2005 aside). His teams just never gave me that feeling that we were going to win, no matter what.

On the flip, when Pete came in I thought we'd make the dance Russ's rookie year, until Clem went down in the playoffs. I thought for sure we'd be there at the end the following year and then again the year we lost to the Pat's. And we were still good enough to go for a year or two after, but the wheels came off. Never had that feeling with Mike's teams.

Fair enough. The 4-12 season was Hass getting hurt and Seneca Wallace at QB for half a season. Regardless, Holmgren didn't leave just because he didn't feel he could rebuild. It was a lot of different reasons, but that wasn't one of them.

 

[oldhawkfan]

Lol. No he didn't. That so called dumpster fire was 10-6 just a year earlier. He stepped down because his contract was up and he knew it was time, plus Cleveland offered him the house.

Holmgrens last year with the Seahawks was 2008. He didn’t go to Cleveland until 2010. Regardless of what they offered him, he didn’t leave the Seahawks because “Cleveland offered him the house. “

 

[pittpnthrs]

Holmgrens last year with the Seahawks was 2008. He didn’t go to Cleveland until 2010. Regardless of what they offered him, he didn’t leave the Seahawks because “Cleveland offered him the house. “

This article even states the Browns offered him "the entire house". Lol. Yeah he took a year off. So what.

 

[pittpnthrs]

Eh it won't post for some reason. Something about media. Anyways it was in the works before he signed the papers.

 

[keasley45]

At the end of the day, the dude was a great coach. If Pete had half the disciplinarian that Mike had, the team would be better for it.

But I think we do tend to look back on his tenure with rose colored glasses. He came in his first year and immediately turned things around. But then there were the years where he was distracted and had his GM titled stripped away. That can't be forgotten. And as sweet as the SB was in 2005, it DID come at an (recent) all time low point for the NFCW. The refs stole the SB from us no doubt, but we also didn't play well against a Pittsburgh team that was lucky to even be there. That, in part is why I see that SB team as one that was a really good team, but moreso peaked at the right time - when the division was down. You can only play the teams on your schedule...

 

[oldhawkfan]

My wife and I periodically play a game when we see random people that look similar to a couple different people we might know. If the two people we know had a baby that random person would be their child. We could do the same with PC and MH.
Maybe if Pete and Holmgren had a baby we’d have the perfect coach. Equal parts offense and defense.

 

[morgulon1]

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".

Pete's like the old college professor who dresses like he likes to skateboard and tries to talk to the young butt.

 

[olyfan63]

I'm in 100% agreement with Mael that "blowing it up" for the sake of blowing it up could easily result in a far worse outcome than what we have, and for far longer. Remember the dark days of the 90's? I also agree that this team could turn into a contender in a span of a single season, with a little luck in player acquisition, drafts, trades, FA signings, getting a DC who can put out a top 10 defense, and lucking out on either a rookie or retread QB. Even if it turns out that better DC is a more experienced, improved Clint Hurtt who simply has more and better pieces to work with.

Has a team ever gone from "worst to first" in the modern NFL era? Well, actually, YES.

1998 LA Rams season, one year before "The Greatest Show on Turf": Record 4-12
It was the second year for head coach Dick Vermeil. The team failed to improve on its 5–11 record from 1997, and instead finished the season 4–12 and missed the playoffs for the ninth consecutive season, during which they had compiled a league-worst 45–99 record.

1999 LA Rams Season, "The Greatest Show on Turf": Record 13-3, Super Bowl Champions
After a poor showing from the Rams offense in the previous 1998 season, Rams VP John Shaw suggested the Rams hire Mike Martz, and Vermeil and the team agreed. Martz advocated for the Rams to sign quarterback Trent Green from Washington, which the team did. This made Tony Banks expendable, and he was traded to the Ravens, which moved Kurt Warner from third-string to backup quarterback. VP Shaw also acquired Marshall Faulk from the Indianapolis Colts in exchange for two draft picks.

In order for anything like this to happen for Carroll and the Seahawks, Carroll would have to give up a bit of control and hire great coordinators, and get lucky in the draft and trades. Carroll and Schneider traded for Lynch, and I argue that is similar to how the 1999 Rams traded for Marshall Faulk, and both were catalysts for their team's Super Bowl run. The Hawks "got lucky" in the draft, getting QB Russell Wilson in the 3rd round, along with Bobby in the 2nd, along with drafting well for several years in a row, getting Sherman, Kam, KJ, and others in mid/late rounds.
Carroll would need to cut bait with players who are underperforming their contracts, and avoid horrible trades for "shiny objects" that give up draft capital and/or blow up the team's salary cap. Carroll's trade logic has been horrible, illogical, fundamentally flawed in several crippling "shiny object" trades, e.g., Harvin, Graham, Adams.
Carroll used to have legit Defensive Coordinators, Gus Bradley and Dan Quinn, but it's been all downhill since them.

Could this type of turnaround happen for the Hawks? Certainly. Will it happen? Only if Pete changes his stripes a bit. In Dick Vermeil's case, he gave up more control to his coordinators in that 1999 season. Wouldn't it be great to see Carroll retire after another Super Bowl victory, channeling Dick Vermeil, crying at the podium?

 

[ivotuk]

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.

If Tom Brady would have been our QB, we'd have 10 Championships. This team has been loaded with offensive talent at times, but the QB play wasn't up to snuff.

And I promise you one thing, if Marcus Tubbs knees hadn't been bad, we'd have won a lot more. Dude was a game wrecker against the run. The difference between with Tubbs, and without was remarkable.