This line struck me:
Ruskell sought a resolution to his future, seeking an extension or some type of answer in recent months.
This might be Ruskell's attempt to control his own exit, but I assume he did not willingly resign with five games left in the season.
Losing Ruskell does not bother me much. If it was my decision to make, I would consider doing the same thing. I do not think Ruskell deserves to be fired, and Ruskell is not being fired. He's made some shrewd moves and I hope whoever takes over builds the offense this defense needs to shine.
In business, one must be ruthless. Whether Ruskell could build an offense or not, it was never known to be his strength. Hiring an offensive specialist, just as Ruskell was hired as a defensive specialist, is a practical, considered maneuver.
Rehiring Mike Holmgren because of regrets and familiarity is not. I am not against rehiring Holmgren if he can prove he's the best candidate, but let him prove he's the best candidate. Reflexively rehiring Holmgren without considering all candidates is bad business.