The two are parallels that do bring smiles to the masses.

Hutchinson was a proven, future HOF player we let go. Holmgren was fired from the same job you are proposing he be rehired as.

Favre was ready to retire, in fact I think he did actually retire, then un-retired himself but Green Bay was already in the process of moving on and didn’t take him back. Holmgren wanted to take some time off for a few years and even announced it before the 2008 season. Allegedly he changed his mind after 2008 but the Seahawks had already named Mora the successor and there really wasn’t any going back.

As far as Holmgren having his GM duties relinquished, that was the correct decision and I don’t know if we make Superbowl XL without it.

The most interesting thing about the Holmgren debate is the argument for stability and fixing the team’s holes vs. the argument to blow it up and start over. I’m usually in the first camp. I hate 1-15 rebuilding teams. But this situation with Holmgren searching the market for his next job is unique.

A compelling argument from the “bring back Holmgren” camp is that Holmgren’s specialty was building and coaching an offense and its QB, and this is exactly what the Seahawks are in need of right now. The “fix it now” argument.

But let’s rewind to 2004. The Seahawks had a high-scoring WCO in place with Holmgren and Hasselbeck at the helm. The defense, however, was mostly aging vets and under-performers including Anthony Simmons, Rashad Moore, Cedric Woodard, Anton Palepoi, and Lamar King. After an extensive GM search, Tim Ruskell was chosen. Why? He was an architect of the great Tampa defense, and had some executive experience in Atlanta. He was given a broken defense to rebuild.

And rebuild he did. Adding Tatupu, Hill, and Chuck Darby to the defense for 2005 made that D a sudden contender and playoff winner. Nice job. But now we all bemoan the long-term implications of bringing in that defensives scouting wiz for the quick fix. Ruskell had no Mater Plan for the offense except to hope and pray they could all keep playing like 2005 while losing key players to FA and old age.

Fast-forward three years from now: pacing the sidelines in a suit-and-tie is a 64-yr old GM Mike Holmgren peering over the shoulder of every coach he hires. The QB he drafted is on the field, protected by the O linemen he drafted. Can he let the coaches do their jobs? Does he belong here as the replacement GM in Seattle’s existing front office?

I think the only right answer for Mike Holmgren may be the answer he is negotiating right now in Cleveland. He wants complete control in building a new organization. I would suggest he probably needs complete control in order to avoid being a major pain in the arse to an existing organization.

Tod Leiweke says the next Seattle GM has to come in and “do it our way”. Not a good fit for Holmgren.

I like the Hutch analogy. Here’s another analogy that might apply: In 2007 the NY Giants considered bringing Bill Parcells out of retirement to be their GM. Rumors were that Parcells wanted more control than just GM. The Atlanta Falcons and Miami Dolphins both offered him VP of Football Ops – control of the whole product on the field and personnel staff. Parcells chose Miami, took control, and the rest is history. It appears this is not what the Seahawks will offer Holmgren.

It seems that, as you say, Seattle like’s its current approach, and the only conclusion I can draw is that Ruston Webster is very likely the next GM. Who else would come in and “do it our way”?

But, oh what might have been… if Leiweke would have, could have, rolled up the whole ball of wax and handed it over to Holmgren.