to the Grudenesque.

4 drafts, 10 first and second round picks, and only 3 difference makers. Jackson and Bernard are stretches in that designation, to say the least.

After that, he basically added 2-3 players that were at least decent every year.

‘99: King was a bust but not completely terrible. Cochran was pretty good for a 4th rounder. This was easily his worst draft. I guess that’s to be expected as it was his first ever and with a new team.

‘00: Alexander, Djack, Kaz.
Alexander is obviously the most productive RB in franchise history, and the only MVP in team history.
Djack is currently Seattle’s #2 all-time WR behind Largent.
Kaz was an outstanding special teams player.
Drafts rarely get better than this.

‘01: K-Rob, Hutch, Hasselbeck (trade), Lucas, Evans, Huff, Bannister.
K-Rob had a special 2002 season that coincided with Hasselbeck’s rise. In the end he was a bust, but he did have his good moments.
Hutch, he’s probably the only Seahawk (besides maybe Curry) drafted this decade that has a good chance to make the HoF.
Hasselbeck- best Seahawk QB ever.
Lucas- very good safety with a nice career.
Huff- good player but left town as soon as deal ended.
Evans- solid FB who is still playing and has had a long, journeyman career. Bannister- remembered for the GB playoff game, but was a pro-bowl special teamer. This was the best draft of the decade for the Seahawks, in my opinion.

’02: Stevens, Mo-mo, Bernard

Stevens was hot and cold, but he did occasionally display the ability to be a game changer and someone that defenses had to account for. Even though its universally agreed that he’s a draft bust, he had a very nice 2005 season and had a few huge games other places too. He had a monster game against Dallas (the romo-fingers game) in the 2006 playoffs.
Mo-mo wasn’t a steal, but he had a very nice career in Seattle and was seemingly always over-valued when he didn’t deserve it and undervalued when he was actually playing his best.
Bernard was a very good value for a 5th round pick and has had a very nice career for a 5th round DT.

Overall, in 4 drafts, Holmgren had 1 very bad draft (1999), 1 very nice draft (2000), 1 outstanding draft (2001), and 1 bad but not horrible draft (2002). I think the misconception about Holmgren as a bad drafting GM is based on the magnitude of his misses. In 2002 alone, Palepoi, Richard, and Bierria were complete failures, back to back to back. The Stevens and K-Rob busts eventually became front page material, and not just in local papers. Things like that created a paradigm among many fans that Holmgren’s notable draft success were washed away and then some by his big mistakes.

The contrast with Holmgren v. Ruskell is that Ruskell excells at finding solid, longer term players whereas Holmgren finds a lower volume of good players but has a higher tendency to find superstars and pro-bowlers. If these men were baseball players, Ruskell would be someone who is consistent and safe, someone like Ichiro, Holmgren would be someone like Adam Dunn- a guy who doesn’t get a lot of hits and strikes out a lot, but makes up for it with the long ball.

I’m not advocating that Holmgren return to Seattle as GM. I think that all options need to be looked at, and its just too easy to throw Holmgren’s name in there. I’d be just fine with him not returning to Seattle, but I never liked the fairly recent trend of fans second guessing his drafts. They weren’t perfect, but they were not as bad as some have said, either.

So some credit is due.