The Middle: I know there are a lot of you who won't join me but I'm jumping off the Mike Holmgren bandwagon. That's right. I'm bailing. -- Web Author
Continue reading

The End in Sight: There's no mistaking his success in Seattle. At the time of this writing, he has just surpassed Chuck Knox as the winningest coach in Seahawks history. -- Web Author
Continue reading

The Final Year: "They’re a fun group of guys and they’re very unselfish. That’s one of the reasons I came back another year." -- Mike Holmgren
Continue reading

Relationships: "Everybody on the team knew he wasn't being fair with me..." -- Quarterback Jon Kitna
Continue reading

Home: We love him, we hate him, we don't know if we can live without him. -- Web Author
Continue reading

From: Ernie Schatz
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 9:54 AM
Subject: RE: Seahawks

Becky
Thanks for the quick response!

The article is well written, but, beyond that, I disagree with your point of view as much as I did when I read it the first time. The article is cohesive throughout. It was made so by connecting all of the negatives in your train of thought when it came to Mike Holmgren. I get the feeling that a lot of what you wrote is much more subjective than objective.

Apparently, you consider facial expressions one of the marks of a great coach. I disagree; one doesn’t have to think hard to remember stone faces such as Tom Landry. I don’t think lack of smiles, frowns or grimaces hurt him or his team too awfully bad. Holmgren quite often saves his celebrations for the locker room, when there truly is something to be excited about…why pop a cork and poor the bubbly when there’s nothing really accomplished yet? Did you notice his post game comments to the team following the Colts game? When he mentioned that the Superbowl will go through Seattle, everyone on that team cheered (mission accomplished), however, when he said “to get the respect you think you deserve, you have to win it all” you could hear a pin drop. There was silent, intense focused resolve on the players’ faces. That’s the correct and mature way to approach it…they hadn’t earned the right to celebrate winning the big one yet. Did you notice that his quarterback was one of the happiest guys in the room?

I disagree that Hasselbeck was handled improperly and I think he would agree. During the course of that 2001 season, he experienced the entire gamut of what most starters take many seasons to learn. Very valuable lessons including playing with injuries, the importance of knowing the playbook inside and out, being on the same page with your coaches and staying in top physical shape during the off-season, not to mention the lows you must fight through when everyone is booing you. By the way, what does Hasselbeck say was the largest factor in his improvement? He said he finally became mature/humble enough to listen to his coaches. Today, Hasselbeck’s performance has silenced most of his critics. I suppose Mike Holmgren had nothing to do with that?

There a few who still say Jon Kitna was handled improperly as well. Perhaps toward the end of Jon’s tenure that may have been true, but I think some fans have selective amnesia in that regard. Holmgren stood behind Kitna through all of 1999. Even AFTER his horrendous game with Tampa Bay, Holmgren continued to support his QB deflecting criticism from the press with comments about a recent 6 interception debacle by all pro QB Dan Marino against Dallas. I remember when all of the blood hounds populating the message boards were calling for Kitna’s head. I stood up for the man through all of 1999 and our short post-season. During the 2000 pre-season, Holmgren made the statement that he wants to see Kitna take it to the next level; a reasonable expectation in my humble opinion. Instead, he stunk-it-up against Miami and was benched in favor of Huard, who proved to be made of glass. Kitna got the job back by default and played respectfully, but hadn’t progressed far enough. Kitna’s status in Cincinnati is further proof that he’s best suited to be a reliable back-up, but enough about QBs.

I can agree with your assessment of the Galloway situation to an extent. However, the downward spiral in 99 actually began when Tampa Bay exposed the RH side of our offensive line which was composed of -I’m sure you remember- Brian Habib, who was pretty much operating with one good leg and Grant Williams, who, on his best day, would be an emergency back-up at RT for most teams. I’m really amazed that the OL we had managed to fool most teams with smoke and mirrors until that point...or maybe we hadn’t played anyone with a pass rush to speak of. Don’t get me wrong Galloway didn’t help the situation, as Holmgren later admitted, but I don’t think Galloway was the sole reason or even a major reason for that team’s demise. Give the QB time to throw and he will get to ball to someone. Block well for Watters and he will run. This doesn’t let Kitna off the hook though because there were many times when he simply made the wrong choice with the ball. I remember Gill Haskell being asked what could be done to correct some of the problems we were having on offense. He replied that a lot of the problems were happening between Kitna’s ears. I wouldn’t interpret that as a positive endorsement. Holmgren was right to let him go. As for the other FA losses that you seemed to lay in Holmgren’s lap…AHEM!

Phillip Daniels was a cap casualty resulting from the free spending days of the Mueller era. Chicago paid Daniels more than Seattle had to spend. They had to get their physical issues in order. Sam Adam’s work ethic was well known and after a few days of training camp with Baltimore, Michael Mcrary got fed up with his lazy attitude and lack of discipline and read him the riot act. Also, did you ever consider the fact that Baltimore had the best DL in the league prior to acquiring Adams? It might have helped Adams to have Tony Siragusa playing next to him doing all of the dirty work while two of the best DE’s in the league created havoc off of the edges. It also wouldn’t hurt to have Ray Lewis playing behind you. I’m glad Sam went to Baltimore where they had Field Generals on the DL that wouldn’t tolerate his laziness. The years he spent on that team probably did him a lot of good. The Ahman Green decision is easy to criticize in hind-sight, but you have to put yourself in Holmgren’s shoes for a second. You need a good cover corner. You have a RB that has played in Watters’ shadow and hasn’t been able to work his way past special teams duties because of his propensity to fumble the ball. Fred Vinson was touted as the best cover corner coming out of college the year he was drafted and was recovering nicely from a foot injury that had kept him off the field. We get him and BANG, he blows out his knee. It would have taken somebody with psychic powers to see that coming. Of all the reasons to criticize Holmgren, I just don’t see the 1999/2000 season as good place to start. Lastly OMG, why in the world to you blame Holmgren for Tez Kennedy’s departure? Tez had nothing but good things to say about Holmgren, but he was getting long in the tooth and wanted to latch onto a team that wasn’t in the middle of a rebuild, so he could have a shot at the Superbowl before he retired. How could anybody blame Holmgren for that?! Tez knew that it would take longer then he had left in him to rebuild the team. How does that equate to Holmgren driving him out?

I don’t want to give you the impression that I think Holmgren is perfect either. His lack of emphasis on defense during the draft and FA is the reason why we had the a 7-9 and some 9-7 seasons to be sure. Defense was an afterthought for him and he later admitted that he would build a talented young defense first if he ever had the occasion to rebuild again. I would not have complained if he was fired at the end of the six year mark because his target was five years. I gave him the benefit of the doubt, because he observed the team for a year to evaluate what he actually had before decided if and how he would rebuild. To me, the clock started in 2000 because that’s when he truly started to build the team in his own image. In retrospect, I’m glad Paul Allen decided to keep him, ELATED that he fired Whitsitt and am very impressed, so far, with Ruskell, who is just the shot in the arm this team and ORGANIZATION has been needing for a long time. I noticed an immediate change for the better in Holmgren once Whitsitt was gone…I think that change has spread throughout team in many respects…as has the new blood Ruskell brought in.

If you look back at Holmgren’s tenure and break it down, he’s delivered winning records and the play-offs in 5 out of 7 seasons and the best single season W/L record in team history. His offense is usually among the top ten in the league (currently #1). He consistently has one of the least penalized teams in the league, which reflects positively upon his coaching and leadership. What does he need to do to finally silence his critics? Well, for some critics, that would be impossible, but winning a play-off game would be a good start. Getting to the Superbowl and possibly winning it would do wonders.

What made me chose to have faith in the guy in the first place is his ability to lead a group of people effectively. He has very positive endorsements from the best men in the business in that regard. My own professional background includes working for some of the best and, regretfully, some of the worst leaders imaginable. I’ve also had the good fortune to lead large groups of awesome people, so I really appreciate the value of a very good leader.

What never ceases to amaze me is what the critics choose to criticize about Holmgren. 2000 was a rebuilding year, move-on! He couldn’t have kept all of those free agents even if he wanted to. There are plenty of better angles to take if one wants to criticize the man. When talking to people who constantly want to take jabs at him, usually some incongruent reason pops up like “I never really liked him because he came here acting like he was some kind of guru or something” or “he showed no emotion” or “Ricky Proehl said the low point of his career was with Seattle” well I would hope so, Ricky worked for Erickson..HELLO! I suppose that was somehow Holmgren’s fault as well? Did you really watch Dawkins play? There’s a reason why most fans had nicknamed him “Dropkins” He was inconsistent. “Oh, but Daryl Williams!” Oh, you mean the guy who spent the entire 99 season nursing injuries and was cut for salary cap reasons in 2000? It happens with every team in the league.

Think about it. We’ve been fans of a mediocre to piss poor team ever since the Nordstrom family sold the franchise to Ken Behring, but most of us would like to pretend that we know how to build a winner better than someone who’s done it before. Yep we’re all proud fans of a team with such a winning legacy A VIRTUAL DYNASTY, so we know what winning is all about and are willing to accept nothing less than perfection, right? How many years of mediocrity and the mindset that brings that type of organizational culture about did Holmgren have to fight against and get turned around? Exit soap box…finally, right!

I feel your pain Becky. I have been a Seahawk fan since 1976, so I’m not one of those band wagon riders who jumped aboard yesterday. If you’ve followed the Hawks as long as I have, it’s not hard to pick out the few bright spots we have had; the brightest being the trip to the AFC Championship game with Chuck Knox. The second brightest season would be the one we are having right now. I’m having some trouble remembering something though. Can you help me out? What’s the name of our head coach?

LOL! J/K!

Happy New Years Becky! Go Hawks!!!
Ernie