Fire Mike Holmgren

[Dudd]

It's still a credible stat though, just because a good quarterback had a terrible year and the stats reflect it doesn't mean that you should throw that stat out the window.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only thing lamer than using a poker analogy in the Sporting Events forum is using one to try to make a point to a poster that doesn't even post in strat forums.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I'm new here and I don't know who does or does not post in the strategy forums, nor did I realize poker analogies were frowned upon. I thought it was a pretty decent analogy...it's not like I said "Raise to find out where you stand" in a relationship thread in OOT or something stupid like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatya think this was, a gambling website that specializes in poker? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

b

[RickAstleyFan]

Some of you are missing the point.

I am not saying Erickson is a better coach than Holmgren has been.

I am saying, that after their first four seasons at the helm, they both had IDENTICAL team records.


I also think it's agreeable that a coach/GM should be able to produce a winner, or at least a team on the way up within four years.

Erickson had far worse players and monies to work with, here is a list of things Erickson did.

Erickson's had three different passing leaders in his four seasons, John Friesz, Rick Mirer and a 42 year old Warren Moon. His leading rusher all four years was Chris Warren.


Holmgren had Jon Kitna and Hasselbeck, not too shaby if you ask me. His leading rusher all four years was Ricky Watters, in/near his prime.


Holmgren did plenty of good in the past, but he has LOST it. (See George Siefert in Carolina, after being the coach with the NFL's all-time best coaching percentage)

Please read and respond to this, k/thx/bye

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
It's still a credible stat though, just because a good quarterback had a terrible year and the stats reflect it doesn't mean that you should throw that stat out the window.

[/ QUOTE ]

So then, this year, based on stats so far, you'd rather have Hass over Brees? Mind you, career-wise, they have about an equal QB rating.

b

[lastchance]

Actually, considering the stage the Hawks are at, I wouldn't really object if Holmgren was fired.

That said, there's probably 5 coaches who don't have a HC job in the NFL already who should be hired over Mike, and their names aren't "Erickson" or "Turner."

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I also think it's agreeable that a coach/GM should be able to produce a winner, or at least a team on the way up within four years.


[/ QUOTE ]

A dual role? No. Many coaches have proved that doesn't work too well.

Holmgren brainfarts once in awhile, but he's far from 'lost it'.

Not really fair to compare the 2 since their situations in the 1st 4 years was very different.

b

[Dudd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's still a credible stat though, just because a good quarterback had a terrible year and the stats reflect it doesn't mean that you should throw that stat out the window.

[/ QUOTE ]

So then, this year, based on stats so far, you'd rather have Hass over Brees? Mind you, career-wise, they have about an equal QB rating.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

So far, this year, Drew Brees has played worse than Hasselbeck. This isn't some football version of PECOTA, it's not meant to project an absolute value of a quarterback going forward. You're attacking this stat for being something that it isn't, all it does is try and quantify how a quarterback in his offense with his teammates has performed relative to what the average quarterback can be expected to perform in similar situations.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, considering the stage the Hawks are at, I wouldn't really object if Holmgren was fired.

That said, there's probably 5 coaches who don't have a HC job in the NFL already who should be hired over Mike, and their names aren't "Erickson" or "Turner."

[/ QUOTE ]

I like Erickson where he's at.

Turner is a joke.

Seattle oughtta hire Schottenheimer.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's still a credible stat though, just because a good quarterback had a terrible year and the stats reflect it doesn't mean that you should throw that stat out the window.

[/ QUOTE ]

So then, this year, based on stats so far, you'd rather have Hass over Brees? Mind you, career-wise, they have about an equal QB rating.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

So far, this year, Drew Brees has played worse than Hasselbeck. This isn't some football version of PECOTA, it's not meant to project an absolute value of a quarterback going forward. You're attacking this stat for being something that it isn't, all it does is try and quantify how a quarterback in his offense with his teammates has performed relative to what the average quarterback can be expected to perform in similar situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, gee, I can twist the meaning of a stat just as anyone else can.

Remember we're talking about the absolute value of the QB. Not just cherry picking stats. Seems that stat was being used to say how there are just an abundant number of QBs that could easily take Hass' place. Not true.

b

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
Seems that stat was being used to say how there are just an abundant number of QBs that could easily take Hass' place. Not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it was used to address whether or not Hass was a top 5 QB. You don't need to be so defensive.