Fire Mike Holmgren - Page 14

adios · #**131** 10-17-2007, 10:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Cause that's a good way to judge.

You should compare it to what other WR of his caliber have gone for and they paid way, way too much for a solid WR. It's also pretty hard to judge the draft already but I'll bet you 1 of the 250+ draft picks behind him will be better than Branch.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with everything you've stated about Branch's value at the time.

But if we actually have 20-20 hindsight on this trade, Branch wasn't worth a #2 let alone a #1. It was clear at the time the Seahawks made the deal that they believed they were a player or two from winning the Superbowl. They clearly rolled the dice and gave up more than what Branch was worth in the hope that Branch would help put them over the top so to speak. They've done other free agent signings with the same idea that they were not too far away from winning the Superbowl. It's not only the Branch trade, it includes other moves that I mentioned. As far as holding on to Robinson and Jackson for too long, remember that Holmgren was also the GM at that time and I'm fairly certain that he believed that building a team through the draft was the way to go thus having Robinson and Jackson develop into top notch receivers would be huge for the team. They clearly had the talent. When Holgren lost his GM title is when they start trying to take shortcuts through free agent signings.

bernie · #**132** 10-17-2007, 02:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But if we actually have 20-20 hindsight on this trade, Branch wasn't worth a #2 let alone a #1.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can agree he's overpaid, but he was worth the #1 or 2 pick.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as holding on to Robinson and Jackson for too long, remember that Holmgren was also the GM at that time and I'm fairly certain that he believed that building a team through the draft was the way to go thus having Robinson and Jackson develop into top notch receivers would be huge for the team. They clearly had the talent

[/ QUOTE ]

They held onto them after he relenquished his GM role(which he sucked at). Especially D-Jack who was there long after Hom stepped down from GM. Their talent is subjective. I don't think it was clear they had talent other than making it to the NFL. Beyond that, neither excelled other than to drop balls.

[ QUOTE ]
When Holgren lost his GM title is when they start trying to take shortcuts through free agent signings.

[/ QUOTE ]

And it worked. We also were able to draft defensive players once he stepped down.

b

capone0 · #**133** 10-17-2007, 02:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But if we actually have 20-20 hindsight on this trade, Branch wasn't worth a #2 let alone a #1.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can agree he's overpaid, but he was worth the #1 or 2 pick.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as holding on to Robinson and Jackson for too long, remember that Holmgren was also the GM at that time and I'm fairly certain that he believed that building a team through the draft was the way to go thus having Robinson and Jackson develop into top notch receivers would be huge for the team. They clearly had the talent

[/ QUOTE ]

They held onto them after he relenquished his GM role(which he sucked at). Especially D-Jack who was there long after Hom stepped down from GM. Their talent is subjective. I don't think it was clear they had talent other than making it to the NFL. Beyond that, neither excelled other than to drop balls.

[ QUOTE ]
When Holgren lost his GM title is when they start trying to take shortcuts through free agent signings.

[/ QUOTE ]

And it worked. We also were able to draft defensive players once he stepped down.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

He's not worth a 1 or 2 pick. TO, Moss didn't get a 1 or 2 pick. SA was on the block (he sucks btw) for a 2nd round pick and nobody wanted him. Stop saying this it isn't true. Nobody e/c Seattle was willing to overpay for him. He was also disgruntled, not as bad as TO or Moss but he didn't want to play for a cheap price.

bernie · #**134** 10-17-2007, 07:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But if we actually have 20-20 hindsight on this trade, Branch wasn't worth a #2 let alone a #1.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can agree he's overpaid, but he was worth the #1 or 2 pick.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as holding on to Robinson and Jackson for too long, remember that Holmgren was also the GM at that time and I'm fairly certain that he believed that building a team through the draft was the way to go thus having Robinson and Jackson develop into top notch receivers would be huge for the team. They clearly had the talent

[/ QUOTE ]

They held onto them after he relenquished his GM role(which he sucked at). Especially D-Jack who was there long after Hom stepped down from GM. Their talent is subjective. I don't think it was clear they had talent other than making it to the NFL. Beyond that, neither excelled other than to drop balls.

[ QUOTE ]
When Holgren lost his GM title is when they start trying to take shortcuts through free agent signings.

[/ QUOTE ]

And it worked. We also were able to draft defensive players once he stepped down.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

He's not worth a 1 or 2 pick. TO, Moss didn't get a 1 or 2 pick. SA was on the block (he sucks btw) for a 2nd round pick and nobody wanted him. Stop saying this it isn't true. Nobody e/c Seattle was willing to overpay for him. He was also disgruntled, not as bad as TO or Moss but he didn't want to play for a cheap price.

[/ QUOTE ]

One reason I say it is because the Hawks needed a reciever, badly. They got one. He was the best available in that spot and they wouldn't have gotten one as good in the draft.

b

RickAstleyFan · #**135** 10-17-2007, 11:30 PM

Now he is blaming the loss on the TV camera that crashed on the field...

bernie · #**136** 10-18-2007, 12:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Now he is blaming the loss on the TV camera that crashed on the field...

[/ QUOTE ]

If it were ND, they'd blame Willingham for the camera crashing on the field causing them to lose.

b

WayAbvPar · #**137** 10-18-2007, 05:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
That int in the 4th quarter is a perfect example of Matt 3+ years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was actually Burleson's fault. He quit running his route. Steve Raible called it on the radio that way, and Burleson confirmed it earlier this week.

Matt's biggest problem right now (other than his sister in law) is he is getting too audible-happy. I get the feeling that he is changing A LOT more plays than we know for sure and it isn't making his coach too happy.

adios · #**138** 10-18-2007, 05:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
They held onto them after he relenquished his GM role(which he sucked at).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you've got me there [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. I'd like to see the Seahawks do well btw and I appreciate the fact that Holgren can be a complete ego maniac and an ASS.

Dids · #**139** 10-18-2007, 05:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That int in the 4th quarter is a perfect example of Matt 3+ years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was actually Burleson's fault. He quit running his route. Steve Raible called it on the radio that way, and Burleson confirmed it earlier this week.

Matt's biggest problem right now (other than his sister in law) is he is getting too audible-happy. I get the feeling that he is changing A LOT more plays than we know for sure and it isn't making his coach too happy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure that "getting" is correct, more like "still is".

Also that throw sucked if Nate was in the pattern or not. Had he ran his route, it still would have been a jump ball.

bernie · #**140** 10-18-2007, 09:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They held onto them after he relenquished his GM role(which he sucked at).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you've got me there [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. I'd like to see the Seahawks do well btw and I appreciate the fact that Holgren can be a complete ego maniac and an ASS.

[/ QUOTE ]

I admired him a little bit more when he put his ego aside and stepped down.

b