Holmgren For President?
by Trojan Knight on Dec 4, 2009 9:32 PM PST
Email
PrintKevin Calabro spoke with John Clayton today about his choice of Mike Holmgren for the Seahawks. I wasn't buying the argument until he mentioned something that piqued my interest. Mike Holmgren has the connections to bring in talented front office personnel. One name that was mentioned has been discussed on this forum as a possible GM candidate was Randy Mueller. What was discussed was Holmgren taking the title of President and Mueller, GM with the two sharing duties.
Here is the audio of the Clayton interview. 26:45 is very interesting.
For those of you that missed it here is Holmgren's interview on KJR. He says some interesting things.
This hybrid might be something I could get behind.
46 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I really don't think we need someone like Holmgren to attract talent.
Any person who comes in to become GM is going to inherit a team that’s gone through two straight losing seasons. In a situation like that a new GM is going to get more leeway and patience from ownership than if you’re taking over for a franchise in the midst of a long string of success. What’s hidden under that is the fact that he’ll also inherit a fair amount of good, young talent to build off of.
The new GM is going to benefit from one of the best ownership groups in all of sports, which readily opens its pockets to provide for the team.
Add to that, the Pacific Northwest seems quite a bit more isolated from the rest of the NFL media than other teams would be. Whoever becomes the GM gets to work in an environment with a little less national scrutiny.
This is an attractive job. We don’t need Mike Holmgren to attract people to work here.
Good post. In addition to what you listed
-VMAC is a great new facility on beautiful lake Washington. I wouldn’t doubt if the VMAC helped the Seahawks in some of their free agent visits.
-Beautiful stadium that is still fairly new and one of the best (and loudest) in the NFL.
-Hardy, fairly loyal fanbase. They aren’t the Steelers or Packers that sell out for decades, but its still a very passionate and proud group of fans, and when the team is good again, they will once again be a difference making force in home games.
Also, the other teams looking for new GM’s, teams like Cleveland and Buffalo, are in worse situations than the Seahawks. I would be surprised if Seattle wasn’t the most coveted GM opening this offseason.
This seems to be something that fans are overlooking--the Seattle job is one of the most attractive destinations in the NFL....
Great ownership group, world-class facilities that attract FAs, a friendly media, and a dedicated fanbase. This is literally a dream job for any hotshot assistant hoping to make his mark in the NFL. Why bother with Holmgren when we could be courting some of those hotshot assistants out there instead?
Is that the light at the end of the tunnel, or the headlights of an oncoming train?
Fair enough. I looked at it as a way to appease both sides.
From a PR perspective its a good move. 90% of Seahawk fans want Holmgren because they don’t know any better. They get Holmgren. The remaining 10% get a Randy Mueller type GM to keep the train on the track.
That said. I posted this to open the discussion of something I had not seen proffered. I am by no means in the Holmgren now camp! I want the candidate that has the greatest likelihood of addressing this teams needs with an eye towards the future. That means new talent at nearly every key position. The last two seasons I feel we tried to add performance but ended up with broken parts.
I've never seen so many people dislike Holmgren
All the man did was REBUILD our franchise to win 4 NFC West Titles, 2 Wild Card appearances, 1 AFC West Title, NFC Championship Title, and was responsible for our only appearance in the SB. Did he beat all of you in a poker game I didn’t know about?
To be so hell bent against Holmgren because he called a few draw plays while acheiving all of these honors for our Franchise you would think the fanbase (“who really know better”) would be receptive. And yet the those “who know better” were willing to follow Ruskell blindly into the ditch our Franchise is headed in.
Mike Holmgren had a talented administration in Ted Thompson and Mike Reinfeldt so we may want to trust who he would select to work with him. Randy Mueller would be a great addition to Mike.
The man knows football and didn’t forget it over 1 season of being out. I could understand if he was gone for 10 years but 1 year removed does not make you a dinosaur. By that standard Bill Cowher, Mike Shanahan, Brian Billick, Jon Gruden, and Marty should all retire now. Obviously football has passed them by too.
It's not just that...
It’s that the ones “who really know better” treat Mike Holmgren as though he shouldn’t even be considered for the GM position. Those “who know better” were willing to give Ruskell another year if not more to continue the downward spiral we are on. Mike Holmgren is treated as though he has glaucoma and has gone blind to recognizing talent that wins in just one year being removed from football.
Holmgren drafted 5 Pro Bowlers as GM and had 2 front office assistants get GM jobs with other organizations. Several of his young coaches have coached as NFL Head Coaches in this league and have been very successful. He has spotted talent at every spectrum of Football, players, coaches, and front office.
As GM Holmgren drafted 5 Pro Bowlers ( Shaun, Hass, Hutch, K-Rob, and Bannister) and one them of is a HOF and another was the League MVP.
As GM Tim Ruskell has drafted only 1 Pro Bowler (Lofa Tatupu)
I think Holmgren deserves consideration for GM when you look at his record. 7 Playoff Seasons in 10 years. Only the Colts and Pats can claim that over that time span. I get the feeling it’s personal and not factual for why so many on this post are anti-Holmgren.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 7, 2009 2:14 PM PST up reply actions
Sure, I'll take the bait.
1. I don’t argue that Holmgren was inept at finding talent, but I would argue that he was more inept at finding DEFENSIVE talent. Take a look at Holmgren’s starting defense his last year as GM. The picture, it be grim.
2. Even though using Pro Bowlers as a marker seems relatively unfair (I would prefer impact players over Pro Bowlers), let’s examine your list. You have Shaun and Hutch, rightfully, Hass (who wasn’t drafted by Holmgren, but obviously all the credit in getting Hass should go to Holmgren), KRob who was a Pro Bowler as a special teams player with the Vikings, and another special teams gunner in Bannister. While Tatupu might be the only Ruskell draftee who has been to a Pro Bowl, you should add Hill, Wilson, Mebane, and Carlson as impact players drafted by Ruskell. I think a perhaps more complete argument in favor of Holmgren is his amazing eye for offensive talent. Add Stevens and D-Jack for your impact draftees and also the signings of Tobeck, Gray, Engram, etc. The man knows (or at least KNEW) offensive talent. I wouldn’t argue with the statement that Holmgren knew offensive talent better than Tim Ruskell (or at least he knew the type of offensive talent that would work in HIS system better than Ruskell).
3. Noting that Holmgren went to 7 playoff seasons is like saying that Ruskell had 3 playoff seasons in 5 years, including one Super Bowl year, and I rather doubt that anyone would say that our repeated 9-7 playoff seasons are on par with the Pats and Colts during that time.
4. People like myself experienced the “Holmgren as GM” phase of Seahawks football. We experienced it, and we don’t particularly want to experience it again. I don’t hate Holmgren, I wish him the best in life, but I would hope that we get someone else to be our GM. It’s not personal, or I should say, it’s as personal as you saying that Ruskell was to blame for the downward spiral, when I would say that age caught up to the Seahawks, and it’s virtually impossible to stay on top in the NFL for more than 10 years at a time.
Yay for disagreement!
"Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?" - Dr. Venture
The biggest thing that worries me about a potential Holmgren return
is his loyalty to “his” players. I worry about having Hasselbeck and Seneca Wallace for yet another year, with no clear choice as successor. In my eyes, Hasselbeck should be worried that this is his last year as a Seahawk, and Wallace should be shitcanned outright. There is also the continuing presence of Craig Terrill, who might hang on again if Holmy takes over.
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
"I never met a llama I didn't like." - TJ Duckett
All I want for Christmas is Joe Haden, Eric Berry, and Nandamukong Suh in Seahawks blue.
by Wayward Llama on Dec 8, 2009 3:59 AM PST up reply actions
Porkchop, Benard, Lucas, Huff, Cochran,....
were solid players for our Franchise too. He signed John Randle who went to the Pro-Bowl too. I would consider Benard and Lucas as impact players along with Randall, Engram and Porkchop. Honestly it wasn’t much to upgrade on defense when he came in. Sinclair, Chad Brown, Anthony Simmons, Adams, and Shawn Springs were here along with Tez.
Say what you will but Holmgren drafted those 5 and built the nucleus of our team while being head Coach/GM. Dual Roles. Ruskell as a full time GM can’t match his record. Ruskell only added to what Holmgren already put in place. He just sprinkled salt in the soup.
In terms of Impact Players Holmgren trumped Ruskell in that department too. Based on what he did as GM/Coach he deserves the consideration to be a full time GM for this franchise especially with the offense in the state it’s in now. Based on the Kudos you gave Holmgren for his eye for Offensive talent, which side of the ball do you think needs more help? I hope your saying Offense…so it would make perfect sense for him to come here NOW to rebuild that part of our team that has fallen off the map.
And if you think not I will think it’s personal and not factual based on what good you thought Holmgren brough to our team.
Feel free to assign my feelings for me. I can't seem to do that myself.
When you originally talked about impact players you were only focusing on DRAFTED players, which is what I then focused on myself. Yes, we could also add free agents and tally up said players, why not? Joe J.! Julian Peterson! Housh! Yay, this is fun! My point was that the discrepancy between Ruskell and Holmgren in terms of DRAFTING talent was not as large as you had stated.
Now, as for what you’re (notice that “you are” comes with a contraction) stating with offense, this is the one reason why I wouldn’t scream to the heavens if Holmgren does become our new GM. You are absolutely right. Holmgren did form the nucleus of our offense with talent that he found. For one thing, I definitely wouldn’t mind if Holmgren had some input on our next starting quarterback.
Notice how I start by agreeing with some of the information you have posed. This is called debating with an individual by acknowleding that we do not exist on polar opposites. I will now continue by disagreeing with you. While Holmgren found some very nice offensive players, notably Hass, Shaun, and Hutch, defensively he was terrible. Again I point you to our starting defense Holmgren’s final year as GM. Compare that starting defense, filled with older players and Kaz, with our current starting defense, who is young, raw, and has the talent to become very good very soon.
See, this is called an opnion based on the evidence that I have picked out. You have your evidence (which is not predetermined by your personal viewpoints IN THE LEAST) and I have my evidence.
Continued YAY for disagreement!
"Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?" - Dr. Venture
I only mentioned FA because you did.
“Add Stevens and D-Jack for your impact draftees and also the signings of Tobeck, Gray, Engram”
I just added to what you stated as far as FA signings. The evidence I gave you was fact. Those guys went to the Pro Bowl and Holmgren did build the nucleus of the SB team.
As far as defense is concerned in Holmgrens last year as GM by week 13 Seattle gave up 256 pts compared to this years team has given up 267 pts. I will not dispute that this years defense is younger but better can be debated. So I think what you think about our defense is purely opinion based. We are not a good defense yet, and it’s possible we can become a good one, but we have lots of holes to fill on defense too. Tim Ruskell’s stregnth was suppose to be on the defensive side of the ball and it hasn’t panned out.
I don’t think Ruskell is the worst GM in the world. I think he’s average. But my comparison was for those who didn’t want Ruskell to leave but don’t want Holmgren back even when comparing their drafting records.
My argument, was why are so many against the idea of Holmgren coming back, considering what he put in place. He did draft those players and signed what we would call the nuclues of our “dynasty” and has hand picked coaches for his staff that have gone on to become successful NFL Head Coaches, and hired front office wizards that went on to become successful GM’s too, so it would warrant the Seahawks to consider him for the President or GM post. I think the combo of him and Randy Mueller are a win win situation. Mueller is a great talent scout and Holmgren is more then qualified to rebuild our Offense. Why take a chance unproven Asst GM’s from other franchises to rebuild something that we already know Mike can do.
But your sarcasm and snickering remarks can be left at the door. I have treated you with respect in our discussion and I would expect the same in return.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 7, 2009 10:42 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Holmgren had a keen eye for Pro Bowl special teams gunners.
BRILLIANT!! YOU HAVE WON ME OVER!!
(he also lost Sam Adams and Philip Daniels defensively)
Your statement “Holmgren did build the nucleus of the SB team” would not be a “fact”, as much as you would like it, hence the attempt to teach you above about what the term “debate” means, as much as you obviously don’t like to hear it.
At this point it’s almost getting sad. Is there actually anything about Mike Holmgren’s GM term that you didn’t like? Anything? Because if you’re becoming an apologist for his defense and for Terriel Bierria it’s pointless to even discuss anything with you.
"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch
by crushedoptimist on Dec 8, 2009 12:11 PM PST up reply actions
"Holmgren had a keen eye for Pro Bowl special teams gunners"?
I wouldn’t call Hass, Shaun, Hutch, Gray, Tobeck, D-Jack, Engram, Porkchop, Stevens, Mo, Rocky B, Lucas, a keen eye for special team gunners. K-Rob would be on this list if he wouldn’t have hit the bottle to hard. He had a 1200 yd season with us and obviously had talent but not self control. Lucas was not on our SB roster but he contributed to our Playoff teams before our SB season.
Most would consider building your SB interior Line with an All Pro QB and MVP RB a nucleus.
I was not happy about losing Adams and Daniels but we still managed to get to the Playoffs and SB without them.
As far as debate goes, my argument was at the ill sentiment that seems to be directed at Holmgren even though we were very successful under him because of his choices as GM along with his coaching.
My argument was in favor of Holmgren as President with Mueller as GM which opened this discussion anyway. Debating Bierria would make more sense for you because that would be the one part of this argument you would win regarding this subject. If you consider Hass, Hutch, Shaun…as special teams gunners, then “it’s pointless to even discuss anything with you”.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 8, 2009 3:14 PM PST up reply actions
Well done. Very well interpreted.
You found my meaning… not so much in my WORDS… but in the dark recesses in between. Extremely nice work on your part.
Because you discovered exactly my purpose in saying that Hasselbeck, Hutch, and Shaun were special teams players. EXACTLY. Regardless of how Hasselbeck wasn’t even a draft pick as you stated earlier!
OR you could not use two special teams Pro Bowl gunners as your super-awesome reasoning as to why Holmgren was such a super GM in comparison to Ruskell.
"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch
by crushedoptimist on Dec 8, 2009 5:20 PM PST up reply actions
Might want to change you name from "Crushed Optimist"
to “Powdered Sarcasm” after that post.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 8, 2009 7:11 PM PST up reply actions
We traded our 3rd Rd Pick for Hass
It’s almost as using our 3rd Rd Pick that season for Hass. But I know you would rather argue about that fact then confront the positives Holmgren brought to this organization.
K-Rob was more then a gunner. He had a 1200 yd receiving year for us and had lots of potential before hitting the bottle to hard. The thought that he could be out of the NFL for a good period of time and come back and still make the Pro Bowl at any position proves that he was a talented player we originally drafted. And for the record he made the Pro-Bowl as a return man not a gunner. I guess in your eyes Devin Hester had no value either while he was returning kicks in Chicago.
Our suck ass special teams could use Alex Bannister now as a gunner. Maybe we would have opposing offenses start inside of the 30 yardline for a change and give our defense good field position. But by your analysis I would imagine Field Position is the distance between the left ear drum and the right ear lobe. An uncanny space where sound is seen and not blurred.
Here’s a suggestion…maybe injecting some of your OWN opinion regarding the subject of this thread in relation to my opinion. And maybe then, a healthy “debate” can begin between our positions.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 10, 2009 11:13 AM PST up reply actions
Our Kickoff coverage doesn't need Alex Bannister.
How many touchbacks has Mare had this year? I wouldn’t be surprised if he leads the league percentage-wise (couldn’t find it, however I did find that we are tied for the league lead with 1.9 per game.)
And on punts and kickoffs, Obomanu has been a solid gunner this year, with the added benefit of being a receiving threat, instead of a guy that runs the wrong routes in playoff games giving a corner a free interception. Maybe it’s unfortunate and unfair, but that, and not his gunning, will always be what I remember Bannister for.
And Koren wasn’t even out of the league a single year when he made the Pro Bowl as a returner. He was with us from 2001-2004, the Vikings in 2005, and the Packers in 2006-07, then back with us. He played 10 games in 04, 14 in 05. In other words, he wasn’t out of the league a single year prior to making the All Pro team as a returner.
There was no “good period of time” out of the league for Koren before making the All Pro team. And Koren was a solid Kick Returner that year, but he was absolutely not the 2nd coming of Devin Hester. Devin was an absolute TERROR.
Oh, and Koren averaged 25.97 yards per return his all pro year, with one TD, in 47 attempts. He only had 2 punt returns.
For comparison, Nate averaged 23.26 over the 06/07 seasons, with 1 TD, in 53 attempts. Pretty similar numbers.
Except Nate also averaged 10.65 yards per punt return with 2 TD’s, which are very solid numbers.
I’m just saying, Koren as a kick returner wasn’t so incredible, although he was good— the biggest thing is he got 47 of them with which to work with. I find it interesting that only 3 years removed from a 1240 yard season however, and at the ripe old age of 25, he was essentially finished as a receiving threat, and yet you still consider him a “success” in the league and a success as a Holmgren pick.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 10, 2009 2:13 PM PST up reply actions
I was responding to Crudish not you...
That being said, I was only pointing out to Crudish that prior to becoming an alcoholic, Koren was a talented player and produced here…after falling way down in life he still picked himself up and did a nice job for the Vikes.
Crudish was nullifying the importance of Special Teams and for that matter calling Koren a gunner when he was a solid return guy. I used Hester only as an example of how Return guys do matter and how they can become game changers.
Please understand that even though my previous post was below yours, it was a reply to Crudish…Also, when Mare doesn’t get touchbacks, our Special Teams seem vulnerable to good returns. Dehaven sucks..So I hope your not defending him in your support for our kickoff coverage.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 10, 2009 3:45 PM PST up reply actions
I know you weren't responding to me...
however, you were quite wrong in your assumptions about Koren and his performance, and you overstated Bannister’s significance as well.
And the Vikes thing was ONE YEAR after us… he didn’t “fall way down in life and pick himself up” he got let go from the Vikes for continued problems. He just still had barely enough talent left at that point to surpass his problems.
I googled “Vikings Robinson Part Ways”
This was the body of one of the first links, from the PI actually. It makes me wonder what part of “But the Vikings released him after he was arrested on a DUI charge…” is as you say, “picked himself up and did a nice job for the Vikes.”
I too, believe DeHaven should be fired… however, the combination of Mare and Obomanu has made our return coverage much much better than the past 3 or so years.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 10, 2009 4:11 PM PST up reply actions
Which is 100% average then...
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 11, 2009 1:57 AM PST up reply actions
Terrel Bierria
and impact player were just used in the same sentence for the first time in the history of mankind.
by Hancock.Brett on Dec 7, 2009 3:44 PM PST up reply actions
He impacted several of our losses.
Now he’s about to go to jail for murder.
ME! BANE!
by SSreporters on Dec 11, 2009 12:25 PM PST up reply actions
And, once again, I set my face in a quizzical expression
Heath Evans. Bierria. A backup RB. Impact players.
By this point, I guess I should mention Owen Schmitt, Ben Obomanu, and Justin Forsett. Which three would you rather have?
"Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?" - Dr. Venture
That Back up RB ran us to the SB when Shaun got hurt against the Redskins.
We probably would’ve lost had he not stepped in.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 8, 2009 3:15 PM PST up reply actions
Yes, Maurice Morris was the difference in that game.
His 18 carries and 49 yards sure tipped us over the edge.
"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch
by crushedoptimist on Dec 8, 2009 5:23 PM PST up reply actions
That reminds me, the first 4 rounds of 2002 was a great draft for Holmgren.
Jerremy Stevens, 1, 28.
Mo Morris, 2, 54.
Kris Richard, 3, 85
Terreal Bierria, 4, 120
Of course, there was Rocky in round 5 and Ryan Hannum in round 6. Both were good picks, particularly where they were found. However, the first four rounds sucked. A talented but immature TE reach, a 2nd round backup to our strongest position player, and two DB’s not long for the league. Oh, and the later picks were all wastes as well.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 8, 2009 7:25 PM PST up reply actions
Stevens was a knucklehead..
Stevens contributed but he was a knucklehead. I think Holmgren reached for him because of his size and talent. We needed an upgrade at TE but Holmgren reached on that one. I thought Mo was great for us though. He averaged a little over 4 yds a carry after Shaun was out and was a very good 3rd Down back when Shaun was here. Mo also managed to be productive at a time when Shaun wasn’t, due to the problems we had at O-Line. He was quick to the whole and had good explosion. He was a pretty good return guy too. Mo did very well at what he was asked to do. It’s tough backing up an NFL MVP.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 8, 2009 11:59 PM PST up reply actions
Pick was a want, not a need.
It only helps accentuate Holmgren’s weakness for picking offensive players… even when the defense was lagging and getting weaker.
And Stevens was high risk at the time, and in hindsight the reasoning behind him being a risk shown through. You can’t justify risk/reach because of need on one hand, and discount it on another (any Ruskell reach/risk).
Terrible draft, even with Rocky.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 9, 2009 12:14 AM PST up reply actions
Was a need. Draft wasn't terrible but was unspectacular.
We needed a playmaking TE at the time. A playmaking TE in the WCO transforms everything. Holmgren did reach on Stevens but I understood why. If you listened to the interview, Holmgren admits to reaching for him. Mike was use to having that weapon in San Fran and Green Bay but he never had that in Seattle, until Carlson’s rookie year (I was in the Dustin Keller camp but Carlson is good too). I wish we still had Rocky but nevertheless Stevens did contribute to our offense while he was here.
But your point is well taken and that’s why I think Mueller would be great in nullifying that instinct of Mike. But our Organization needs offensive players right now and I think that fits perfectly with Mikes tendencies in the draft.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 9, 2009 12:54 AM PST up reply actions
I gave up trying to debate him...
He’s becoming FEARLESS in defending Holmgren.
/Ribbit
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 8, 2009 12:20 PM PST up reply actions
Semantics...
I think the line between discussion and debate are narrow… what I don’t like is when shouting or not listening is misconstrued as debate. That’s why I gave up.
Mr. Blanche III has convinced me of this— he likes Holmgren as a GM far more than I do, and that he believes Holmgren was far greater than Ruskell. The first I fully agree with, the second I am fully and permanently unconvinced of.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 8, 2009 10:33 PM PST up reply actions
True.
Whiskey you and I have had civilized debates…I think in the past you have brought up good points and we have agreed to disagree on occassion. Especially regarding the subject of Ruskell and Holmgren.
But the whole point of this discussion was to discuss Holmgren as Pres and Mueller as GM. I only use Holmgren’s record as reason why I think it would be a good idea. I point out the positives of what Holmgren brought to Seattle to support my argument which is what good debate is suppose to be. Holmgren wasn’ t perfect by any stretch, but his record reveals to me that he was pretty good, especially on Offense. And Offense is where we need the most help on at this moment. He has also been very good as selecting coaches and front office assistants, things that Presidents do. I think Mueller can compensate where Holmgren is weak, making for a good combination.That’s all.
You’re actually one of the guys on this site I think brings good thought and beef to the discussion and not snickering and opinion without fact to support your thoughts.
Unfortunately, some on this site are not even engaging the subject of the post and are just bashing me for thinking Holmgren could be a good President with Mueller as the GM. It shows that they’re are just “hell bent” (not Brian L., he brings facts to the table too) against Holmgren coming back in any capacity. No matter what he could contribute.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 8, 2009 11:39 PM PST up reply actions
None of those are impact players.
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
"I never met a llama I didn't like." - TJ Duckett
All I want for Christmas is Joe Haden, Eric Berry, and Nandamukong Suh in Seahawks blue.
by Wayward Llama on Dec 8, 2009 3:55 AM PST up reply actions
Mo Morris was impact.
Mo was a great 3rd down back and when Shaun went down against the Redskins in our SB run he came in picked up right where Shaun left off. When Shaun was out for extended periods of time after that SB season Mo didn’t miss a beat. I would argue that he was more effective then Shaun was the last 2 seasons of Shaun’s career in Seattle. Heath Evans was stuck behind Mack Strong. Heath Evans has talent and is now impacting the Pats Offense as their starting FB. Bierra…okay, that was a stretch…But singling out one guy does not change the fact of what Holmgren built here.
In earlier post, not in this thread, I mentioned that Holmgren shouldn’t have let Adams and Daniels go…huge mistake. He replaced Adams with John Randle a season later so I’ll give him a bit of a pass on that one..but those were two players I loved in a Seattle uniform.
by Mr. Blache III on Dec 8, 2009 2:51 PM PST up reply actions
If Heath Evans was an impact player
Wouldn’t it be Holmgren’s fault to first misuse him and then let him go? Was he ever an impact player for Seattle? Like… the team we root for?
"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch
by crushedoptimist on Dec 8, 2009 5:23 PM PST up reply actions
No!
For one, Holmgren wasn’t the GM who let him go and didn’t misuse him…All Pro Mack Strong was the starting FB and Leonard Weaver turned into a great find…was Holmgren suppose to turn him into a LB? But for someone who likes to debate you really pick out futile points. But you answered my question by avoiding Mo’s impact which was the purpose of the post you responded to.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Was physics the reason Wes Welker dropped Tom Brady’s pass?
- Maria Menounos wears Giants bikini in Times Square after Patriots loss
- How the Super Bowl prop bets played out
- Want to watch UMass kids riot and a Giants fan get punched in the back of the head?
- Only dance can heal the wounded souls of Matt Light and Rob Gronkowski
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
