Tuesday, March 22, 2005

Whoa! You're not going anywhere...

...we're not done yet!

The News Tribune has a story today where Mike Holmgren talks candidly about how close he came to leaving the Seahawks at the end of last season.

Appearing relaxed in shorts and sunglasses, the Seattle Seahawks’ coach opened up about his six-year tenure as never before. Buckled last season by dispiriting on-field setbacks and worn down by petty infighting that made office life miserable, Holmgren acknowledged that he came closer to walking away from the Seahawks than the public ever knew.

Thank GOD that CEO Tod Leiweke came on the scene to provide a buffer between Holmgren and Whitsitt, and probably was the voice of reason in Mr. Allen's ear which lead to the eventual departure of the right guy.

Leiweke’s addition doubled the number of executives with regular access to ownership. Holmgren still reported to Whitsitt, but he and Leiweke managed to meet for lunch after Reinfeldt’s departure. Their relationship had to help.

“I just kind of opened up to him,” Holmgren said. “I got to know him a little bit, he got to know me a little bit. “After the season, I told him that Kathy and I would go down to Arizona and I would just have to think through this.”

Leiweke seemed sympathetic.


Now, with Reinfeldt back on board, and with Ruskell firmly in place, it appears the entire front office is pulling together in the same direction, rather that pulling each other appart.

“In the preliminary stages of free agency, before Tim was even hired, Tod and I worked very hard at meeting with Paul and trying to paint a picture that we can get this thing done,” Holmgren said. “I emphasized the fact that I thought it was important to bring Reinfeldt back in. “Fortunately, Paul did that. And then boom, Mike went to work and in two weeks he got (Hasselbeck and Jones) re-signed.”

It sounds like Mike Holmgren is once again feeling like this is HIS team, but this time he's got HIS players in key roles, so even though we've got some holes to fill on defense, there seems to be a lot to be hopeful for next season!

13 comments:

  1. I have to admit I was doing a lot of nail biting and hand wringing in those first few weeks after the loss to the Rams in the playoff game. I was sure Mike was gonna take his ball (and QB) and head for kinder gentler pastures.

    Not a good time to start all over, not when we're this close. (contrary to the opinions of some 'experts' at fan sites)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Come on Vin,you don't have to start over when getting a new coach.The Falcons got a new coach didn't rebuild,Panthers got better when Fox came in,Cowboys got better when Parcells came in.Just because you bring in a new coach don't mean you have to start over.
    I am not saying we should have gotten a new coach but a new defensive coordinator would have been nice.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I wish Rhodes would have run oft.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I was worried too Vinny, worried that Holmgren would leave (I didn't think he had a chance at taking Matt with him, but who knows) and worried that Ray Rhodes would leave. I am ecstatic that didn't happen. I truly think all the right people left our organization. (Except Lucas, I still would like him, and Cromwell. Gotta get a new receivers coach. Maybe next year)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ewwww... Matt is holding Holmgren's boob.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yeah we know Sho, ya hate Ray, too bad you never gave a real reason for the anymosity. I'm still waiting on your' reasons for your' point of view of him.

    And P, I really think Matt would've gone with the system and coach that made him.

    And Sho, the Cowboys got better because of Parcells because he's one of the greatest coaches to ever coach, but do you think the Hawks were gonna get a Parcells quality Coach? Who? You never answered that one either! And several have asked you.

    ReplyDelete
  7. At this juncture it is best that Holmgren is still in place because there were not really any better candidates for his replacement as indicated by 'Vinny'. It is disturbing, however, that Holmgren can use the excuse of a Front Office in dissarray to mask his own complicity in the underperformance of this team. Even with 'Whitless' in charge this has always been "Holmgrens Team" and he should be held accountable for their performance.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm a liitle confused Arch, if Whitsitt was in charge how can it have been 'Holmgren's Team'?

    As has been extensively reported, the biggest problem was the fact it was NOT Mike's team, it was Whitsitt's team. That's why Holmgren was thinking about leaving, the fact that he had limited control of the team. Whit was the reason we overpaid for guys like Wistrom, and the fact that droppers like Jackson got a new fat contract though he was underachieving.

    I'm not saying Holmgren didn't make some coaching mistakes as far as certain playcalls, but to blame him for the team's decline last season isn't accurate IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well 'Vinny', Whitsitt's charge was mostly business while Holmgren was left to run the 'football' end of things. It was Holmgren who failed to address our defensive defiencies while building an offense, Holmgren that had final say in selecting underachieving draftees, Holmgren who until maybe as recently as last season was responsible for virtually all free agent decisions...hence 'Holmgrens Team'. It could even be said that it was Holmgren that opened the door to the expansion of Whitsitt's power by not handling these vast powers in an appropriate manner. Whitsitt for all his problems that have been well documented at least somewhat understood his limitations and stayed out of the football business and stayed in the money business. Holmgren's ego lead him on a power hungry mission to prove himself not only the master of the playbook but also a master of team economics, player evaluation etc. to the detrement of team success.

    ReplyDelete
  10. To further illustrate my point, take a look at our roster for last year. We had (2) Quarterbacks, (3) Running Backs, (2) Tight Ends, (3) Tackles that could likely start for most teams in the NFL but we could seem to find a single Middle Linebacker to shore up the defense. This is by Holmgren's design and has nothing to do with Whitsitt. Holmgren seems to want to share responsibility for failure but if we had been to the Superbowl this would have been his team all the way.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Archon,

    Holmgren has always expressed accountability for the team's losses. Your conjecture doesn't hold water.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Archon=FireHolmgren

    Whaddya think?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I don't think so Blue, Archon is much better spoken. Wrong, but better spoken. To say that we had 3 runningbacks that could start for most teams, is just insane. Most being more than half, I would love to have a list of 16 teams that Kerry Carter could start for. I would likewise love to see a list that would take Dilfer over their starter. We have good backups on offense, not multiple starters. This is a good thing, and should be applauded, not condemned as a indifference to the defensive side of the ball. Let's not forget that while we were on our 5th, 6th, and 7th backers at times, we had 5th, 6th, and 7th backers that were able to play. They weren't starter quality, but they played, and played well at times.

    ReplyDelete