Don’t jinx us into Holmgren!

I think he brings a logical voice to discussion. However for the most part I agree completely.

No reason to wait for that. But I agree they should thoroughly look at every promising GM candidate before they make a hiring. It will probably take a month or two, I’m sure.

“Vulcan inc?”

As I recall, they do a very thorough job and took their time before choosing Ruskell. And in fairness, that was not a bad hiring at all.

As-long as I’m going hyphen-crazy… ahh never-mind.

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2009/12/2/1182976/carlos-dunlap-careens-off-big

Still a sore spot….

… as long as you haven’t stabilized into a state of mediocrity.

FWIW, the lack of “stability” doesn’t seem to have hurt the Broncos very much. If it wasn’t time for bed I could probably come up with more examples.

The point being, whoever gets the GM job should evaluate Mora and his staff realistically, honestly and fairly, and if the conclusion is that they’re not who we need, he shouldn’t be afraid to replace them simply because it would “destabilize” our staff and schemes.

Traditionally, a head coach is allowed to hire his own staff. So if the new GM wants, for example, to fire Greg Knapp, he’d have to do it over Mora’s objection - which probably means firing Mora too. So I don’t think the GM can look at the coaching staff one by one, but only as a unit, one for which Mora is ultimately accountable.

I’m guessing Tim Ruskell is probably a top 5 GM rounds 2-7.

I liked the defensive front seven-centered model, pass rush and run-defense focused. The versatility of the line rotation was intentional and built in.

I like Knapp’s system, a WCO that’s more about creating mis-matches and more intent on creating big play opportunities than the Walsh model it stemmed from. More willing to take shots. Mitigated by balance with the run, itself mitigated with the ZBS.

Wild-cat style trick plays, a recognition of the importance of big plays amidst balance/efficiency, ZBS, fire-zone blitzes amidst a general focus on generating pressure from four, situational line rotation, bold gameplanning that adjusts to opponent (such as Mora’s observation of the significant disparity in performance of Favre & Warner against 5+ man pressure vs. 8-man coverage).

This is a very very modern approach to football. Fire-zone is one of the newest innovations to the game, aside from the A11. They built a very solid foundation. Even up to 2008, Holmgren’s model dictated some portion of personnel strategy. This was the start of a transition to a new model, while trying to keep open a contention window for a core that had been built in 2002-2004. There’s only 7 rounds in the draft, you can’t overhaul a team in one year.

We’re still 6th in run defense run DVOA. So I’ve found a number of things we’ve done well in. And most of it was the most important, starting with the foundation of a solid and modern model. I’d rather than us not having a well-founded plan but having some good pass defense or urn blocking and red zone offense for a year.

Why would a GM step down in the middle of the season? The Seahawks front office would have just told him that they would be evaluating him after the season and then be deciding on whether he would get a new contract. I’m pretty sure that is how it goes in the vast majority of front office decisions regarding the GM position. The most likely scenario in my head is that the Seahawks have a person in mind to replace Ruskell, and that likely candidate would be Holmgren given that he was in talks with the Browns this week.