Listening to people who want Holmgren back is like listening to Gramps talk about the glory days. Yes, we know, the depression was awesome times and jazz music is still the best music ever and doesn’t at all make people ears bleed tampons.

I know, logical fallacy argument, but it was worth it.

Although I have read quite a few studies about how people tend to remember the good parts of their past and forget the bad. It’s much easier to remember the hits and forget the misses, even if one of your misses was once your dear lovely wife.

Great post BTW.

It’s just ridiculous to compare the two as if bringing back the Walrus is a realistic option.

I’ve heard it said that Holmgren liked to “go big” and reach for superior talent, a formula that leads to some home runs, but many more bad strike outs. I would actually disagree that it lead to all that many home runs. Somewhere in another post a while back, I argued a while back that Holmgren’s two greatest successes, Alexander and Hutch, were not only no-brainers, but obvious “classic Ruskell” picks according to the “Ruskell Matrix.” Holmgren as a GM was way overrated, and the two best successes he had were not his “reach picks” but were typical of Ruskell-type selections.

Seriously, someone should create the “Ruskell Matrix” — I don’t know the exact rubric, but it would certainly include points for being a multi-year starter, performing in a high talent conference against “major” competition, having a good “character” background, etc.

Anyway, both Shaun and Hutch fell in their respective drafts, so there was value in selecting them where the Seahawks picks were. Both were coming out of college as multi-year starters and standouts in large conferences, with reputations as sound individuals and great football players who still showed up to class, etc. I don’t think it is at all a reach to say Ruskell would have drafted the same two guys given the circumstances.

Of course, then again, Ruskell may not have chased Kendell out of town, therefor he may not have valued another 1st round pick being used at the OG position. You could argue Ruskell might have passed on Shaun given that Ricky Watters was with the team already, but you could also see Ruskell wanting to go a different direction as quickly as possible, with Watters not really fitting the Ruskell character definition, and Alexander being the prototype.

Compare that to Holmgren’s “reach picks” and while many people want to say he swings for the fences and sometimes hits homeruns and sometimes strikes out. Koren Robinson, Jerremy Stevens, Lamar King, and an absolute host of others up above.

His “swing for the fences” mentality left the franchise without any notable home runs on risky picks, but a whole lot of unfulfilled potential. I loved what he did as a coach, but I’m glad he was ‘fired’ as GM and I’m glad he isn’t our GM today…

2003
1. Trufant. 2. Hamlin. 4. Seneca 7. Josh Brown.

2004
1. Tubbs. 2. Boulware 3. Locklear 5. Hackett 6. Terrill.

I remember Isiah Kacyvenski. :( He was my favorite special teams gunner, and I was able to mold him into a monster linebacker in Madden 04. I’m still pissed that he went to the Rams.

(Thus ends my irrational mancrush on Isiah Kacyvenski)

Especially when you downplayed finding a future HoF and a future MVP as nothing special in a span of 4 drafts. How many future MVPs and HoF’s did Ruskell draft in his first 4 drafts (2005-2008)? Tatupu is probably the closest but he’s no longer on a HoF pace. Holmgren did draft higher, but we can’t simply deny credit for those finds because of draft position. A lot of bad GM’s draft high every year and very infrequently “hit” those picks. If Holmgren was a “terrible” GM, he would have as well.

I think Holmgren was basically an average GM. He completely remade the team to fit his designs, and usually teams that blow up are awful- yet he still managed about ~.500 in his tenure despite this. It was worth it too, because the talent he added was the foundation for Seattle’s dominant stretch from 2003 to 2007.

My biggest criticism for Holmgren was his lack of expertise with defense. In particular, I found it hard to forgive that he didn’t retain Sam Adams. The very first draft not run by Holmgren, the team added Trufant and Hamlin, and the following season, the 2003 defense took a big step forward.

Its just my layman’s opinion, but I think Holmgren improved as a head coach after dropping GM duties. Being a head coach is like having two full time jobs, and being a HC/GM is like having 3 full time jobs. So it makes sense that after dropping GM duties, he’d be more effective when focusing purely on coaching and preparing his team. My hunch is that if Holmgren came back in a pure GM role, combined with his previous experience, he’d be a significantly better GM the second time around…

…for Cleveland. I doubt Holmgren returns to Seattle. Holmgren replacing Ruskell would essentially amount to a lateral move anyway. Change for Change sake. I’d be “ok” with it, but only because I value offense so much more than defense.

Perhaps the best thing would be for Ruskell to gain an adviser for offensive talent. Hiring Shanahan to be HC, if Ruskell could stomach the ego and Shanahan could stomach not having total control, could be the kind of pairing that completes one another. Shanahan knows how to find ZBS OL and the RB that are perfect fits for the system. He knows how to find #1 WR without using upper 1st round picks. He also values franchise QB’s, as evidenced by his trading to draft Jay Cutler. And of course, Shanahan is a WCO coach. Granted, Holmgren seemed to have a fairly minimal influence on Ruskell’s drafts during his time there, but still, its a neat thought.

It seems to me like a really imprecise way to measure a GMs ability. That typed, I understand it is one of the few tangible ways we, as fans, have to evaluate a GM. King and Palepoi were reaches. So was Lofa. Sometimes you hit your point. Sometimes you don’t.

While former Seattle Seahawks coach Mike Holmgren has rejected an inquiry from the Bills while he mulls other options…

Do you give someone credit for doing what no one in the history of a franchise has done. or do we go strictly by the draft when speaking about GM?

I’m not sure where I fall on that. In fact, they seem separate concepts. That said, the “Same ole Seahawks” are coming on strong. Patience is a dangerous excuse for indecision.

I have always believed that Holmgren is considered great for one reason. He has a god given gift for one major “thing”. A “thing” so big, that IT alone keeps teams in the playoff hunt, and with any luck at all… good enough to compete for it all.

Mike Holmgren knows quarterbacks. He has made his living on being able to recognize and develop QB’s (the single most important position in team sports). Ty Detmer (BYU), Jim McMahon (BYU), Steve Young, Brett Favre, Matt Hasselbeck…. (OK Hasselbeck had the benefit of a couple HOF linemen and Shaun but still).

John brought up a great point above. Holmgrens’ departure coincided with Matts’ decline, although I’m not so sure it was coincidence. His most recent stint with Seattle had run it’s course. Seattle no longer had the “golden boy” QB and he knew it. Floundering along with a declining Matt Hasselbeck would have only tarnished his legend.

Whether or not Holmgren would be willing to just take the GM job and not GM/coach.

He always seems like a control guy and maybe he’d be willing to do both tasks at hand.

If he were to return as coach (and resume playcalling duties) that would be my biggest fear. To use one of John’s old quotes after we somehow lost to Cleveland two years ago:

Mike Holmgren was once one of the best coaches in the NFL, he is no longer. It starts with his personnel decisions. Can any sighted individual contend that Maurice Morris is not better than Shaun Alexander in every stage of the game? And yet, I fully expect Alexander back chewing carries and pulverizing drives as soon as next week. I fully expect that the Hawks’ young, talented offensive line will be scapegoated though Morris gained 6 yards per carry. Just as the Browns and, in fact, every opposing defense can expect a slow developing off tackle run on fourth and short.

That’s the play-calling rub. Sub in Alexander, run it into a pile. Sub out Alexander throw it downfield, wash, rinse, repeat. After staking a double digit lead heading into halftime, Seattle passed nearly three times as much as they ran in the second half. That number would be even more lopsided if not for a couple of inexplicable runs on the Hawks fourth quarter comeback drive. With 2nd and 10 at the Browns’ 15 and 18 seconds left, Holmgren called a draw. A DRAW! The Hawks had to scramble to even spike the ball. Seattle turned a potential win into a sure trip into overtime. In nearly twenty years of watching the NFL, I have seen few coaching decisions so singlehandedly undermine a team’s chances of winning.

That’s basically how I feel about Holmgren. As much as I love him his stubbornness and situational thinking took such a massive tumble that I’m not sure returning for potentially much of the same. That Browns game pissed me off to no end and I thought the draw play with no timeouts was undoubtedly the stupidest playcall he’s ever had as a Seahawks head coach.

I’m taking a different slant in regards to Holmgren as possible GM because I have a feeling Holmgren the GM would mean Holmgren the coach again.

OH YEAH. Because of pages of glorp like the last 50 comments here.

Ok. Dead Topic it is.

Each has made good moves and bad moves, blah blah blah. The franchise right now is in a different place than it was in 1999, and there is no way to accurately compare the tenure of these two gentleman. So instead, here is a side-by-side comparison of each of their drafts (excluding the 2009 draft, so each of them both have 4):

Holmgren Year One / 1999
1.22 Lamar King DE
3.16 Brock Huard QB
3.21 Karsten Bailey WR
4.20 Antonio Cochrane DE
5.07 Floyd Wedderburn OL
5.19 Charlie Rogers CB
6.01 Steve Johnson DB
                                                                               
Ruskell Year One / 2005
1.26 Chris Spencer C
2.13 Lofa Tatupu LB
3.21 David Greene QB
3.34 Leroy Hill LB
4.04 Ray Willis OT
5.23 Jeb Huckeba
6.22 Tony Jackson TE
7.21 Cornelius Wortham LB
7.40 Doug Nienhuis OT

Holmgren Year Two / 2000
1.19 Shaun Alexander RB
1.22 Chris McIntosh OT
2.21 Ike Charlton DB
3.18 Darrell Jackson WR
4.22 Marcus Bell LB
4.25 Isiah Kacyvenski LB
6.09 James Williams WR
6.24 John Hilliard DT

Ruskell Year Two / 2006
1.31 Kelly Jennings DB
2.31 Darryl Tapp DE
4.31 Rob Sims OG
5.31 David Kirtman FB
7.31 Ryan Plackemeier P
7.41 Ben Obomanu WR

Holmgren Year Three / 2001
1.09 Koren Robinson WR
1.17 Steve Hutchinson OG
2.09 Ken Lucas DB
3.20 Heath Evans FB
4.09 Orlando Huff LB
4.32 Curtis Fuller DB
4.33 Floyd Womack OG
5.09 Alex Bannister WR
6.09 Josh Booty QB
7.10 Harold Blackmon DB
7.22 Dennis Norman OT
7.37 Kris Kocurek DT

Ruskell Year Three / 2007
2.23 Josh Wilson DB
3.21 Brandon Mebane DT
4.21 Baraka Atkins DE
4.25 Mansfield Wrotto OG
5.24 Will Herring LB
6.23 Courtney Taylor WR
6.36 Jordan Kent WR
7.22 Steve Vallos C

Holmgren Year Four / 2002
1.28 Jerramy Stevens TE
2.22 Maurice Morris RB
2.28 Anton Palepoi DE
3.20 Kris Richard DB
4.22 Terreal Bierria DB
5.11 Rocky Bernard DT
5.34 Ryan Hannam TE
5.36 Matt Hill OT
6.22 Craig Jarrett P
7.21 Jeff Kelly QB

Ruskell Year Four / 2008
1.28 Lawrence Jackson DE
2.07 John Carlson TE
4.22 Red Bryant DT
5.28 Owen Schmitt FB
6.23 Tyler Schmitt LS
7.26 Justin Forsett RB
7.28 Brandon Coutu K

The only 3 advantages Holmgren has is Hutch, Shaun and Time. Tim Ruskell has been able to draft better players throughout all 7 rounds of the draft, even though he had less picks than Holmgren, as well aspicking further down in the draft. Also, in my humble opinion, the 2009 draft was more success than failure (W-L record notwithstanding), which increases the gap between the two.

Holmgren was not a bad GM, but Ruskell is better. To replace the latter with the former would be a step backwards, in more ways than one.