Comments on: Holmgren acknowledges interest in Browns job

By: snydro22

snydro22 — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:49:15 +0000

One of the reasons I am not enthusiastic about the idea of a Holmy return is that I just think we need a new set of eyes on the organization. I think we have a good crop of young talent, and we need someone to come in and re-evaluate each position from the top down and make some tough choices. There are some players who do not pull their weight but seem to be getting a pass from the coaching staff and upper-management. Those guys need to go.. Ruskell has HIS guys, and some of them aren’t worthy of the roster spot.. I am afraid Holmgren (who is already notorious for doing so) would favor some of his remaining guys as well, and may have a little bit too much of an emotional attachment to some of them..

Too bad there aren’t any hot young gm’s out there.. I guess I’ll have to settle for hot young co-eds..

× Flag comment

By: yellaman

yellaman — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:31:58 +0000

Easton,

Then the seahawks need to bring in another GM other than Holmgren. I can’t stand by and watch this guy, Ruskell, lie to Seahawk fans about a 2 yr plan and him supposedly a guy who knows defensive talent. Where is this team ranked defensively. I know Tatupu is hurt and Tru/ hill just came back maybe coaching is the problem or maybe Mora ( I personally like Mora as HC). But this team and organization needs a new direction or path to winning.

× Flag comment

By: yellaman

yellaman — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:20:55 +0000

Dukeshire,

I just can’t sit back and watch this team go backwards before we can move forward. I preach till I’m heard I’m a seahawk fan just like you and I want to see improvement or people need to be let go. In the real world ( not sports) people get let go all the time for doing a job poorly. I think its time to let Ruskell go. Go hawks

× Flag comment

By: Dukeshire

Dukeshire — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:07:09 +0000

You’re preaching to the choir a bit. As I said, I do not want him re-signed. I’ve seen enough and want ownership to entrust someone else with the rebuilding of this team. I was only speaking for Sevos. Simply because he feels there are reasons to give Ruskell more time (and some of those are valid) doesn’t mean everything else he says is marginalized, necessarily. I suppose I was clarifying his point because he was taking some on this board, unfairly. His support for Ruskell is not unconditional. But I know better that to get involved in someone else’s “battles”, so that’s where I’ll leave it.

× Flag comment

By: yellaman

yellaman — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:03:10 +0000

Dukshire- while I agree most of the time with some of your comment. I disagree with Stevos comments of keeping Ruskell. I’m fed up with his arrogant behavior and lack of bring in draft talent. Only good picks he has made were Tatupu ( rhodes guy) and Hill ( can’t stay healthy) and Carlson (holmgren wanted him). Ruskell was suppose to give us a top tier defense the likes of Tampa bay superbowl team. What I see defensively is an overpaid unit with aging superstar player past their prime (Kerney, Redding) and inadequate youth with limited talent. I don’t trust Ruskell to fix this mess and do you the O’Line needs help we need to address the RB and get a future QB to Hasselback. On Defense, We need D-Line help ( DT and DE)
need another CB What happen to Tru? A safety ( move babs to nickel) and role players at every position. I don’t trust Ruskell to accomplish these. Do You?

× Flag comment

By: chuck_easton

chuck_easton — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:52:00 +0000

yellaman,

I’m not saying the team should keep Ruskell. If he goes he goes. What I can’t tolerate is this Ruskell demolished “Holmgren’s’ team mantra that keeps coming up as well as this idea that Holmgren will come in and ‘fix’ everything.

Holmgren was hired as the GM/HC in 1998. He was annointed the savior of the franchise. He had this ‘five year’ plan to bring the team back. After four (1998-2002) very bad years with terrible drafts Holmgren was fired as GM.

Mike Holmgren is/was the best HC Seattle has ever had, don’t get me wrong. But his personnel decisions were terrible and he was stripped of his GM duties. Plain and simple.

× Flag comment

By: BobbyK

BobbyK — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:47:29 +0000

I think Tatupu was more of a TR pick than a Rhodes pick. TR loved/loves that guy. I heard (don’t remember where) that he had to be talked out of taking him with the Spencer pick (would have been a better use of it). Anyone else heard that about the Tatupu pick?

× Flag comment

By: yellaman

yellaman — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:43:30 +0000

chuck I would dispute the the timeline of Holmgrens loss of GM duties. Whitsitt fired Holmgren as Gm and asked mike stay on as HC. then he hired Ferguson. “By this time Holmgren had already gotten us Matt Hasselback and had the players offensively that made up the superbowl team. Although, Holmgren wasn’t Gm anymore he had a lot of pull with the teams player personnel (guys he had hired and brought from green bay). The guys in the front office were Holmgren guys and Whitsitt slowly got rid of them and replaced them and then took over GM duties. It wasn’t until Holmgren was about to quit that Paul Allen stepped in and fired Whitsitt and Holmgren stayed on. Then ruskell came and made 2 good draft picks (Tatupu was a rhodes pick & Hill) brought in some players he knew from the Tampa Bay superbowl team (Jurevious & a DL player-can’t remember his name). Now thats it. name me another impact player besides grant & Kerney’s first year here who have performed or developed here. Ruskell team has lost talent and is no longer a playoff team. I don’t see us getting any better with the level of talent on this team. I would hate to see another period like the Seahawks of the 90′s that would suck. I’m a season ticket holder and I pay exorbit amount of $$$ and would like to see the fans money going to something I believe and trust in and I don’t believe or Trust Ruskell and his 2 yr plan ( mid season analysis) I’m just sayin

× Flag comment

By: chuck_easton

chuck_easton — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:47:17 +0000

Oh, and after the 2002 season there was a movement in the media and with many fans to fire Holmgren as both GM and HC because the team was so bad.

Paul Allen decided to let him keep his HC duties IF Holmgren would agree to give up the GM duties. Lucky for the team Holmgren agreed but he held a grudge against all three GM’s that followed him.

× Flag comment

By: chuck_easton

chuck_easton — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:41:35 +0000

bobbayala,

You are using revisionist history. Holmgren was widely TRASHED as the GM here. But don’t let your love for him and your total hatred of Ruskell get in the way of a good thought.

Go back in history and look at some of the national articles about Holmgren the GM.

And some people on here think that Ruskell replaced Holmgren. That is just an indication that you really didn’t start following the Seahawks until, oh, around the 2005 run.

After Holmgren was fired Fergusun took over as GM. Then there was Whittsitt who was followed by Ruskell. There was a breakdown of the 2005 team a while back and it was apparent that Fergusun and Whittsitt had more starters on that SB team than either Holmgren OR Ruskell.

× Flag comment