Argh.

by John Morgan on Nov 1, 2007 1:04 PM PDT

This doesn't require a full story, breakdown, analysis--pick your phrasing. It doesn't even require a full sentence:

Womack has become a canker the Hawks can't seem to burn from their body. His continued presence on the roster is a testament to cronyism and moronic talent evaluation by Mike Holmgren. The few healthy snaps he saw last season were some of the laziest, least technically sound looks at guard play I have or likely ever will see. To quote Sir Ben Kingsley:

"No. No no no no no no no no no! No! No no no no no no no no no no no no no! No!"

Tweet Comment 10 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

oh god

why?

V. 1.0, mutherf***er, know what I'm sayin'?

by Scruffy Lefty on Nov 1, 2007 1:21 PM PDT reply actions

Because he blame will never, ever

be assigned to Shaun Alexander. The failures of the running game will continually be blamed on the O-Line until it's abundantly clear to everyone without a brain that Shaun's done.

by BrettJMiller on Nov 1, 2007 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions

Chop

Let us all hope that this is Holmgren's attempt to light a fire under Gray and Sims, and that he does not actually intend to use Chop in a game. Cripes, I cannot imagine that Holmgren actually thinks that Pork Chop is better than Sims or Gray.

I've taken to noticing in games that running backs on other teams frequently outrun linebackers pursuing them along the line of scrimmage. This is something that SA never does. It is a patent flaw in the running game that, by itself, renders Seattle's rushing attack below average. It is incumbent upon Holmgren to address that problem immediately. Maybe the solution is to put Chop in at halfback. He may be faster than Alexander at this point.

by jeager on Nov 1, 2007 4:51 PM PDT reply actions

I may not be opposed to Chop playing over Gray

but defiantly not over sims

V. 1.0, mutherf***er, know what I'm sayin'?

by Scruffy Lefty on Nov 1, 2007 5:23 PM PDT up reply actions

Holmgren's the GM?

"His continued presence on the roster is a testament to cronyism and moronic talent evaluation by Mike Holmgren."

When did Holmgren become the GM again?

by grantgti1039 on Nov 2, 2007 12:54 AM PDT reply actions

It's not an autocracy.

Holmgren has some say over personnel decisions. Womack is a compromise. A minimal one, at that--notice the one year contract he signed. Womack costs almost nothing, and because he's a Z stringer, he almost never sees action in anything but the most extreme situations. Holmgren drafted him, Ruskell hasn't sent him packing yet. Porckchop has spent his career getting in the way of superior players: Gray, Locklear, Sims. If and when Mike Holmgren retires this offseason, Womack will go to the scrap heap with him.

by John Morgan on Nov 2, 2007 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions

Mmmm...contradictions taste so good!

John, in the original post you state that Porkchop is only in Seattle because of one man: Mike Holmgren. Then in your response to me calling out your inaccuracy you contradict your original statement by saying that Holmgren isn't the only one that makes talent decisions.

So which is it? Is Womack in Seattle only because of the Holmgren Autocracy or because of a committee of people that see some level of professional talent in him?

by grantgti1039 on Nov 2, 2007 2:34 PM PDT reply actions

How did he contradict himself?

I'm not seeing it

V. 1.0, mutherf***er, know what I'm sayin'?

by Scruffy Lefty on Nov 2, 2007 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions

No contradiction

John made the points that (a) Chop remains on the team because of Holmgren's cronyism; and (b) Holmgren retains some influence over personnel decisions. Those two points are entirely consistent. Indeed, (a) could not be true without (b) being true.

by jeager on Nov 2, 2007 3:01 PM PDT reply actions

contradictions

John made these points:

A. His continued presence on the roster is a testament to cronyism and moronic talent evaluation by Mike Holmgren.
That is to say that Womack is on the team strictly because of Mike Holmgren's sole cronyism and talent evaluation.

B. It's not an autocracy.
Holmgren has some say over personnel decisions. Womack is a compromise.
Which is to say that Womack is there as a compromise between Holmgren and someone else.

A and B are contradictions of each other. He explicitly states that Holmgren alone made the decision to keep Womack and then says is was a decision by committee.

Now move.

by grantgti1039 on Nov 3, 2007 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions