Sunday, June 05, 2005
I was reading the Seattle P-I looking for things I may have missed and I came across one line in an article by Clare Farnsworth (click the external link to read the article) which concerns me, and leaves me thinking that the criticisms of how Holmgren handled the Koren Robinson thing from the start may have been accurate.
So without further ado, here's the comment:
"But Holmgren admits he is uncertain if any of them (the recievers on the current roster) can replace everything that has been lost with the release of Robinson."
Perhaps I am reading too much into one comment, and I am sure I will take some heat for this thread, but please keep an open mind and hear out my reasoning, for my concern.
Firstly, one has to question the wisdom of publicly questioning the talent of the recievers on the roster, which he obviously is doing, by saying that there may not be a player who can replace him. I wonder how the other recievers on this team, who have kept their noses clean and have worked very hard in the training room and on the field, take this slight on their abilities? I wonder if the recievers on the roster don't feel as if the front office is speaking out of both sides of it's face, when it says that on one hand, character and hard work are most important to this team; then the head coach makes the assertion, that there may not be anyone on the roster who can replace a player who only played the first half of last season, and who, when he was on the field, had a drop rate of over 40%.
How hard can it be really, to replace someone who gave negligable output? One would think that in order to replace him, all you would have to do is show up, considering the fact that Koren wasn't even on the field much of the time. But Holmgren apparently has forgotten what really was, and only remembers what could have been.
Also, I question the wisdom of publicly calling into question a tough decision that had to be made, and one which Holmgren himself, did not have the cajones to make. Is it wise to say something publicly, which can, potentially, lead to a rift between Holmgren and Ruskell?
Now you may say that Holmgren isn't calling into question, Ruskell's decision, perhaps not, directly; but indirectly, telling the press, that the players Ruskell brought in, may not be good enough to replace Koren's potential, is in fact, calling into question the moves that Ruskell has made this offseason, he is indirectly saying that the moves Ruskell made, simply were not good enough.
When Holmgren was taking criticism from the press and many fans about the way he handled the Robinson issue, I felt that there were things, which we as fans, and even the press, were not privvy to, so that the criticisms were unfair.
However, since Holmgren has made this comment, regarding how difficult Robinson's talent will be to replace; even in spite of the fact, that in four years, we never got more than a glimpse of that potential, it makes me wonder if Mike Holmgren has in fact lost touch with reality.
My question is, what's so difficult to replace? Just what exactly is everything that has been lost? Potential? Potential is just potential, and it means nothing, if it never becomes anything more than potential. In the case of Koren Robinson, it never did, so why is Holmgren bemoaning the loss of potential? Wouldn't it be wiser to instead focus on what you do have, rather than what could have been and never was?
It is my opinion that Holmgren did indeed become so enamoured with Robinson's potential, that he lost touch with what really was, and was therefore, incapable of making a rational judgement regarding him.
Which is why, in the end, it took someone new, with strong convictions, to finally do what was right, and really needed to be done all along. Thankfully, we now have a man, TIm Ruskell, who is capable of making the tough decisions, otherwise, we would likely still be involved in the merry-go-round that is Koren Robinson's football career.