Fire Mike Holmgren

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
Easily still a top 5 QB.

[/ QUOTE ]

in no order

Brady
Manning
Palmer
Brees
mb Bulger, McNabb, Romo

Hassselback is right there in the 2nd tier, though. he's not the problem.

[sublime]

i dont know if holmgren is a good coach or not...i suppose his track record suggests he is....however there is no excuse for that game...that was just awful.

[Kneel B4 Zod]

also Hasselbeck is now 32. shouldn't come as a huge surprise if he is declining

[PokerFink]

[ QUOTE ]
also Hasselbeck is now 32. shouldn't come as a huge surprise if he is declining

[/ QUOTE ]

Quarterbacks peak and decline later than other positions. He should still be fine at 32.

[tarheeljks]

when was he definitively a top 5 qb? i feel like this was debatable even the year they went to the sb

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
also Hasselbeck is now 32. shouldn't come as a huge surprise if he is declining

[/ QUOTE ]

Quarterbacks peak and decline later than other positions. He should still be fine at 32.

[/ QUOTE ]

here is 1 article I read. granted, how they rate players isn't great.

but, their conclusion is:

"the word "old" means 28 for a running back, 30 for a receiver, and 32 for a quarterback."

"it's no mystery that QBs under 25 tend to improve. They typically start off so bad that there's nowhere to go but up. Then, there's about an 8-year stretch where age doesn't seem to be much of a factor. Finally, while there always seems to a few oldsters out there putting up solid numbers, the decline phase does kick in around 32, so remember that those guys are the exception rather than the rule."

[PokerFink]

[ QUOTE ]
when was he definitively a top 5 qb? i feel like this was debatable even the year they went to the sb

[/ QUOTE ]

He was never a definitive top 5 QB over any length of time (>1year). Top 10, sure, but top 5 is pushing it.

DPAR Ranks
2007: 9th (through week 5)
2006: 28th
2005: 5th
2004: 12th
2003: 3rd
2002: 9th

[tarheeljks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
when was he definitively a top 5 qb? i feel like this was debatable even the year they went to the sb

[/ QUOTE ]

He was never a definitive top 5 QB over any length of time (>1year). Top 10, sure, but top 5 is pushing it.

DPAR Ranks
2007: 9th (through week 5)
2006: 28th
2005: 5th
2004: 12th
2003: 3rd
2002: 9th

[/ QUOTE ]

didn't think so. so bernie is just a fanboy?

[Dids]

I don't grasp DPAR enough to really make this claim, but I would guess that it underates Matt some. Mike's offense isn't going to put up huge numbers, and back when Shaun was awesome, he vultured a ton of TDs. In the superbowl year, Matt was just flat amazing despite playing with a couple crackheads catching the ball for him. I would comfortable suggest that he was top 5 in 2005. (hey look DPAR agrees!).

Per the postgame.

The change to the draw on the 4th and 3 was Matt.

The 4th and 9 is just Mike being Mike. He has never been a risky guy in that spot, and is typical call is to kick away and trust his defense. His offense is not one that loves like 8+ to go spots, especially when his team is getting blitz raped. I think we've won more games than we've lost because he doesn't take those risks. I assume he changed his mind because he realized that our D sucked monkey balls.

Shaun's postgame stuff is fantastically delusional. He just refuses to acknowledge why people dislike him, which I'm sure makes them dislike him more.

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
I assume he changed his mind because he realized that our D sucked monkey balls.

[/ QUOTE ]

but the D doesn't really matter in that spot. you need 2 scores anyways. either way you are going to need to recover an onside kick.

if you miss on 4th & 9 the game is over. you're going to miss a large % of the time. if you kick the field goal at least you get to the onside kick.