He was a great coach and a bad GM, but he was also both at the same time. We saw how great he was when he concentrated on one, which was coaching. Now, who's to say he wouldn't be great if he just concentrated on the GM duties? I would be willing to take the risk.

Give'em a chance. The season aint over yet. IF we beat Detroit and San Fran loses to the Titans we're both 3-5. IF the cards lose to Chicago their 4-4. It's far from over.

He took risks on players. So what. I would rather take risks at the chance of being great, rather than play it safe and always be mediocre. Plus Holmgren has the connections to put together an all world coaching staff.

KevinC - You made the exact point I planned to make. Homgren split duties, which I think hurt him both as a coach and a GM. It has been said many times that it is nearly impossible to take on both jobs, and that very few are to do both jobs effectively.

Also, I think that some of the decisions made by Holmgren the GM were really made by Holmgren the coach - drafting players to be used for certain plays or schemes, rather than to build a roster.

Finally, I listen to the Mike Holmgren show each week on KJR and he seems to have really learned from his mistakes. I think that as a full time GM, we wouldn't see the same types of mistakes (Palepoi, Stevens, etc.) that he made in the past.

All in all, the one thing Holmgren has always brought to the team was legitimacy (he has made it to the top of the mountain, and people are willing to follow his lead) and optimism.

Maybe Holmgren isn't the answer... I don't really know. However, I do feel fairly confident that Ruskell is not the answer.

OK - he brought more than 1 thing to the team. Sorry for the brainless typo

Turn your story around What has Ruskell really done?Where are his star players?where will Lofa Tatupu stand in 5 more years? Where is the great Defense he has been building for years.I would love Holmgren back.Do I think he is on his way back NO.I think he may coach somewhere and he will get finale word over his players that is what he wants.I think Ruskell gets one more year then he will be gone,unless this season really goes south.I am sure of one thing I would trust Holmgren to build this offense back up and bring a coach who could command respect and discipline from his players.

Youre argument seems to rely on the supposition that Holmgren 1)Has leanred nothing from past mistakes, 2) That his drafts didnt get better every year(they did), and 3)That HOlmy would still baby punks like Robinson.

I disagree wholeheartedly with this. One, I think Holmgren showed admirable humility the last couple years here, something Ruskell has shown NONE of. Holmgren admitted mistakes, admitted he would handle quite a few things differently, if given a second chance. Ruskell seems to be still determined to recreate the Super Bowl winning Bucs of 8 years ago, despite the fact that the entire NFL knows how to defeat that team.

If Jim Mora deserved a second chance despite only one playoff victory to his career, and one season above 9-7, then Hoomgren surely deserves it.

Does this mean I want Ruskell fired? Not necessarily. Ruskell has done very well in the draft the last two years--best in the NFL in my opinion. He is pretty good managing our cap space, and he usually doesnt overpay for players (Julius Jones and Duckett excepting) That will be hard for Holmgren to duplicate. IF Ruskell steps up and makes Mora fire Knapp after the season, I would be willing to see him return. Also, Ruskell needs to admit his mistakes with the line, draft a LT and bring in some G FA's and a FA C, and dump his retarded high-priced backs Jones and the has-been James.

This team has been going in the wrong direction for four years and its Ruskells fault. Not one single unit of this team is performing even as well as during the Pre-Ruskell days. This despite Ruskell having all the money in the world and no one to answer to. This is his hand-picked team. No NFL team can wait 4+ years to field a decent offensive line--and yet thats whats happened under Ruskell. Much of our failure is due to the porous offensive line. No GM can be considered a success after spending so much money and draft picks on one side of the ball, only to put up such pathetic numbers: OUr defense hogs like 60% or more of our cap, plenty of high draft picks, and yet it hasnt been very good for four years--and this year its worse. This despite guys like Hawthorne and Herring playing better than the starters. The players are fine in most cases, but as a team they arent playing well together. Unacceptable.

Ruskell and HOlmgren both approach the draft hoping for 3-4 players to have an impact. For the most part, both have acheived that. Some of HOlmgrens draftees didnt make the team, but ended up playing well for other teams because like Heath Miller, they couldnt beat out guys like Mack Strong as rookies. Does that make them bad picks? No, it doesnt.

And as I said, I fully expect Holmgren to be a much better GM this go round, as I feel he has learned from his mistakes and from Ruskell's example. Holmgren will no longer ignore character, nor get cheap over 500k on a HOF players contract.Whether its here or elsewhere, I think Holmgren will be a fine GM.

I am afraid that Ruskell lacks the necessary humility to change course soon enough to salvage his legacy here in Seattle. If he gets canned here, I also think he has a chance--albeit to a lesser degree--of being a success in his next gig.

But Im not going to scream for Ruskell's head. The only way I want Ruskell canned is 1) if we rehire Holmy as GM, and 2) If Ruskell refuses to change course with Knapp, the line, etc as I have said. Otherwise, what good will it do to can him? There isnt anyone else available better. Cowher is a turd, and if he EVER works here, I will refuse to be a Hawkfan during his tenure.

I recall Holmgren being both the GM & Head coach at the same time. It did not work out and he was reduced to being just the head coach. Could it be that he was not successfull as GM simply because he had too much on his plate? Makes me wonder how he would fare being just the GM without the distractions of the coaching responsibilities.

I think it would be a mistake to get rid of Ruskill. I think he did a tremendous job especially in last years draft. Curry I believe was the pick of the draft. Trading for a future #1 and still getting Unger. Look at all the gems he has found in later rounds Tatupu, Carlson, Hill, Mebane Willis, and Herring, not to mention bringing in Hawthorne as a undrafted FA.

His mistakes have been not Frachising Hutch,trading our 1st round pick for Branch, and maybe drafting Jennings and Tapp who were late 1st and 2nd rounders.

Holmgrens 1st round busts King, Robinson, McIntosh, and Stevens, and thats not to mention his 2nd and 3rd round misses. None of his picks have been long contributors in the leage except Hutch & SA, could be part of the problem of our talent

Yes, Holmgren sucked as a GM.

Read this great article if you want a breakdown of his mediocrity:

http://sea.scout.com/2/816748.html

I cringe whenever I hear fans calling for Holmgren to come back. Just say no. There are way better options out there.

I think with only the duties of being GM Holmgren can succeed. He can build an offense. Ruskell missed the boat, those great defenses of the past are being traded for high powered offenses. New NFL rules are made to help the offense, so why not bring in a master of evaluating top offensive talent. Look at all the offensive coordinators who are now head coaches.
Bring back Zorn too. He sucks as a head coach, but with only the duties of being an offensive coordinator he can excel, he was put in a bad situation in Washington.
If the NFL is a copycat league we keep copying too late, Ruskell is done. Bring back Holmgren NOW!!!

Holmgren is a great coach but he plays favorites with players and coachs, holding on to underpreforming talent. Our Defense had been underpreforming for years but Holmgren held on to John Marshall. Why? It was obvious to everyone he was a bad defensive cordinator (except the Raiders)

Holmgrens a great guy and a great coach but he is either unable or unwilling to cut players and coaches loose when they underpreform. Although, his offensive genius and skill with quarterbacks was enough to keep us in the playoffs, neither one of his best assets would be used in the role as GM. But on the plus side Holmgren knows the importance of a great O-line (unlike Mr. "I can find good o-lineman late in the draft" Ruskell).
In my openion Ruskell has done a good job in the draft excluding his neglect of the o-line but he has made some very painful mistakes in free agency. Between letting Hutch get away giving up a 1st for Branch and signing Housh is pointless when we cant protect the QB. If he thought we were a great reciever away form the Super bowl he's clueless, and also thats alot of money to spend on a luxery player when the foundation of a team is not in place.
I hope the Seahawks look to a third option and let both the Holmgren and Ruskell eras R.I.P.

In all fairness to Holmgren, Tomahawker is right. Holmgren was both coach and GM. There was too much on his plate. He may or may not be a good future GM, but he did learn a lot from that experience. After listening to what he has said since retiring, I think Holmy wants to be a GM again, not necessarily a coach.

That said, the Hawks have moved on from the Holmgren era. The Timmy and Jimmy era is now upon us. The Hawks have diminished since the Superbowl year (duh!). Timmy, Jimmy and Mikey were all along for that slide.

The Hawks are in a transition period now. The transition will be complete when there is a new QB. It would be nice if Hass could play for a few more years, but that is a big IF.

This transition will take some time. The D is pretty close to being transitioned, but the O has a way to go, especially the O-Line. Despite some temper tantrum throwing by many Hawk fans, it still will take time. Holmgren was the coach for many years before the Hawks won a playoff game (playoffs?).

A drastic change now means loosing seasons for the foreseeable future. Any new GM or head coach will want to put their own stamp on the team. That means a rebuild. When a part of the game isn't working, the good teams keep at it.

ruskells offensive draft picks are as woeful as holmgrens defensive picks, at least holmgren had 3 pro bowl players, hass, hutch, shaun (league mvp), ruskell had 1 (tatupu) and he is questionable talent now.

The Curry pick was a wasted #1 for the Hawks, the rest of the top 4 NFL teams drafted difference makers. Despite going higher, Curry is not even the best player at his position. Ruskell is a bonehead.

The Jets and many other clubs are thanking us for drafting Curry, nothing wrong with keeping an old broken down quarterback and allowing another NFL teams build their future.

Loved Holmgren....but his time is done. He was a poor GM. He had whole draft classes that were busts. One feather in his cap was Alexander and ironically he didn't fit his system. He never got to see a true West Coast System because his star prima donna running couldn't and wouldn't catch or block.

I hate to say this but my beloved Hawks were a bunch of soft, predictable, chokers. No lead was safe.....EPIC collapses at home and on the road. Think Ravens, Rams, Cowboys etc.

After 6 years and 3 first round playoff losses in a crappy division, Holmgren was on the hot seat. Ruskell comes in and changes the dynamics of the team cut cutting Robinson, Simmons, and Signing ALexander to a one year deal, singing Darby, Fisher, Jerivious, drafting Tatupu, and Hill. Without Ruskell we do NOT go to the Superbowl.

Sure there has been mistakes....ala Hutchinson. Ruskell has makes a lot of moves and they don't all pan out but he is not the problem. The idea of Holmgren coming back is a joke.

I don't really understand why most people running this forum like to kiss Ruskell's ass all the time??

If I hear someone call for Holmgren to come back as GM and Chucky (Gruden) to be the coach, I'm going to puke. I loved Holmgren and he will probably coach somewhere next year and do a great job. However, we need to stop hanging on to the dream that he's going to come riding in on his white horse and save the Seahawks. Remember the Redskins bringing back Joe Gibbs and the results?

I think that your are dead-ass-wrong about Curry. 8 games does not a player make. I see Curry playing in several pro-bowls, maybe even an all-pro team or two before he's done. I like the fact that he got fined in his first pro game for being too aggressive. I hope that his attitude rubs off on the rest of that D.

http://bleacherreport.com/arti...newsletter

Mike Holmgren put a perpetual losing Seattle organization on the map for the first time ever. Ruskell was lucky enough to ride Mike's coat tails for a while. Ruskell is so unprofessional he hired his friend as head coach instead of hiring the best man for the job and divides the team by announcing it a year early in the process. And on top of that Ruskell continues to hire friends like Knapp instead of quality personnel. I don't understand this Ruskell ass kissers club either, maybe he's taking you guys to lunch.

Can the coach! Can the GM! Do it because it is working so well in Cleveland.

Why the "Ruskell ass kissing club" I watched enough shitty football in Holmgrens first six years. Yes, they won the pathetic NFC WEST, but the idea of a Superbowl was a pipe dream before Ruskell changed the chemisty on this team. I know some of you may be new following the hawks, but they were chokers. Holmie had 10 years and couldn't get it done. Time to move on. If they can't get it done by next year, fired Ruskell too.

That 12 guy is just pissed we passed on Maluaga or how ever its spelled. Maluaga was considered an above average prospect. Curry was called the best linebacker prospect in over a decade. Lets see how this one folds out. Linebackers usually live up to expectations and so far I can't imangine Maluaga upstaging Curry.

HawkFan72,

Great article and a good look at what really was.

So many fans here have a short memory and don't remember that after a couple of years and after the sparkle had worn off the Holmgren signing, everyone was calling for his head for the next three seasons because they expected instant success just like now. In fact, the only reason he stayed was that Paul Allen has a lot of patience and decided to give him another three years. Then as 2005 approached, our defense really sucked until Ruskell came in and bolstered it with free agents. His free agents and draft choices were half the starting defense. He also signed the one offensive player that was absolutely critical to the passing game. Jurevicius caught around 10 TD's that year and filled in for injured receivers all season without missing a beat. Without JJ alone, we'd have never made the SuperBowl. Ruskell had as much to do with that team's success in his first year as Holmgren had to do with it since he was hired.

I love Mike Holmgren and what he did for Seattle and you can go back to 1999 and look at my posts from then until present defending him time and time again to everyone who wanted his head just like I'm doing now for Ruskell if you want proof. Mike decided to leave though and I respect his decision. Now we've turned the corner and just like Holmgren's first few years, things aren't going too well yet as the team gets built into it's new image and acquires the players necessary to play the way our new coaches want (just like when Mike took over in 1999).

I guess it's just the nature of things that there are a number of complainers who will attempt to besmirch whoever is a visible target when things don't go well and not want to tolerate the necessary time being given to figure out the problems and fix them. They want instant gratification and if they don't get it they throw a tantrum and advocate wholesale slaughter not caring about the consequences of that action and how many years that will take to bear fruit again.

It was said that Holmgren was slowed by having to work with Whitsitt and then Ruskell because he wanted total control over all personel decisions. Ruskell accomodated him but I doubt there was a lot of harmony there. Now that Ruskell has a chance to really do it his way, I think his trial period starts in ernest and he will be given at least two or three years to prove up. A three year extension makes sense to me and is what I think will untimately happen at season's end. The Ruskell haters will have to wait and give him a chance before they see his demise and a watch new rebuild take place.

Meanwhile, I wish MH the best on what he decides to do unless he's coaching against the Seahawks. As far as GM goes, I think we have one of the best and would be fools to can him at this point. So does John Clayton who rates Ruskell quite highly. I think most of the fans here should make sure they really know what's wrong before they advocate who to get rid of. Right now, it appears as if Mora's taking his first actions to shake the team up and get them fired up. Rome wasn't built in a day. Give it some time.

BillT - I don't have a short memory, I know this team and its history about as well as anybody. I can't speak for anyone else, but I never wanted Holmgren fired, even during his rough patch. I had faith in him, and his ability to make things right, which he did. Yes, Ruskell started strong and contributed to the SB team. He deserves credit for doing so, but he and his "plan" has led this team in to the crapper ever since. He let a HOF player get away, invested heavily in a defense that is showing no improvement after 5 years (his players, his draft picks, not Holmgrens), allowed position group after position group (with the exception of linebacker) to deteriorate, and let the offense age without any succession plan for its most important players. I didn't even call for Erickson's head in '99. I'm sorry, but Ruskell stinks. This is not "finally" TR's team. He has been drafting its players and building its roster for 5 years. You are free to feel how you want about him, that is fine, but don't make blanket statements about fans who don't share your opinion having short memories, not understanding the facts, or whatever. We all see things through our own lenses.

Wow, I look a those drafts, and except for 1999, I come away impressed:

2000
Shaun Alexander - League MVP
Darrell Jackson - 2nd in seattle career receptions (I think)
Isaiah Kacyvenski - Great special teamer for years

2001
Hutchinson - HOF
Ken Lucas - Great corner who we never should have let go
Heath Evans - Has two super bowl rings. Bellichek loves him. Enough said.
Orlando Huff - Was a starter for two years
Floyd Womack - Played great last year and has had a 9 year career
Alex Bannister - Pro bowl special teamer

2002
Jerramy Stevens - Only Seahawk to score a touchdown in the Super Bowl. Is STILL Seattle's best TE of all time.
Maurice Morris - A great change up to Shaun. Was great when Shaun was out
Rocky Bernard - Awesome DL
Ryan Hanam - Was huge our Super Bowl year, plays big for Detroit today

2003
Trufant - Pro bowl corner
Hamlin - Pro Bowl safety
Wallace - Our Number 2 QB
Brown - Seattle's best kicker of all time

2004
Tubbs - Took us to the superbowl in 2005. Ask Tatupu how much his is missed
Locklear - Your new LT
Koutovides - Great special teamer
Hackett - had great potential
Terrill - Still playing in our DL rotation

Wow, let's see. A HOF guard, League MVP fringe HOF RB, Pro Bowl special teamer, a pro bowl corner, a corner who we brought back at the age of 30 and is our best corner of the lot. Not to mention all the "role" players.

Those who bash Holmgren as a GM are flat ignorant. I don't care if we bring him back, but stop being stupid.

Kidder95 - Don't forget he also traded Joey Galloway for 2 1st round picks and traded for Hasselbeck. Also, if Ruskell can't be blamed for injuries, Holmgren shouldn't be blamed for Chris McIntosh's career ending kneck injury. Think how great that OL could have been had he not been injured. Wow!

I'm not even advocating for Holmgren, I'm just tired of his GM abilities being called poor, while Ruskell's are being praised in the same sentence. Holmgren built the foundation and most of the house, Ruskell put on the finishing touches and completed the landscaping. Important finishing touches without a doubt, but not deserving of credit as the builder of the SB team.

SF Hawk - Nice article indeed. It says basically the same thing I am trying to say, but better.... Further proof that Ruskell has to go. He isn't in touch with reality regarding his roster, in my opinion.

Good points.

There is a huge difference between being conservative and going for it. I'd much rather lose 42-34 going for it than 9-6 being safe.

Please, for the love of God and a great fan base, build an offense. Once it gets good, do what the Saints have done, and a few pieces and go for it all.

This defense stuff has worked twice, maybe three time successfully in the last 20 years.

The fan base will suffer with the lack of vision we are experiencing at the highest levels.

Sorry.... but your way off in this article. The proof is always in the pudding. Mike was doing TWO jobs while GM. You can't base a conclusion off of that. You can however judge him on when he had just one job....Head coach. Ruskell will not return and Holmgren will take his place. Mora gets 1 more year under a new GM. If its not working, then Holmgren steps in as head coach. Or, Ruskell AND Mora are shown the door at the end of the year. In which case Holmgren takes his pick on the position. Thats the reality. Sorry.

kider, that list was just flat out retarded. Who cares if Hacket ect ect had great potential. Where is that getting them now?

Holmgren was a mediorce at best GM. We don't need that crap back.

4th/5th rounders are expected to grow into their potential and be key special teamers. That is not retarded.

I'll give you DJ Hackett, maybe that is stretching it.

I never said I wanted Holmgren back. All I am pointing out is that Holmgren was not a bad GM; especially if you are comparing him to Ruskell.

Ruskell has drafted one pro bowler: Tatupu
Holmgren made Seattle into an offensive identity.
Ruskell has not been able, in five years, to build a defensive identity.

This is fact. Go ahead and bash Holmgren, but he brought superstars, and some busts. Ruskell has brought us some nice players and some busts.

Let me say it again, I don't care if we bring Holmgren back; but stop being ignorant. He did fine.

Holmgren was a better GM than Ruskell hands down period. Lets see......

Darrell Jackson, Robbie Tobeck, Steve Hutchinson, Chris Gray, Sean Locklear, Matt Hasselbeck, Shaun Alexander, Grant Wistrom, Rocky Bernard, Marcus Tubbs, Chike Okeafor, Marcus Trufant, Ken Lucas, Marquand Manual, Niko Koutavides, Josh Brown, Pork Chop Womack, DD Lewis, Ken Hamlin, Bobby Engram, Antonio Cochran

--- Seems like a good list of guys that contributed to the Hawks that were signed or drafted under Holmgren's watch.

Another article that strips off the rose colored glasses that allow us to remember the past as we'd like to remember it rather than how it was. From July of 2006 when the past was fresher in our minds.

http://seahawksblog.blogspot.com/2006/07/accurately-remembering-past.html

I went back and reviewed comments made about Holmgren and company from 2002 and 2003 and was struck at the similarity of what was being said back then about Holmgren the GM and what is being said about Ruskell the GM now. If I copied a lot of the comments and substituted Ruskell's name for Holmgrens's, no one would know the difference. Holmgren wiped out most of those memories when he finally took the team to the big show in 2005 but as of 2003, five years into his tenure, perople were calling for his head and saying he was a terrible GM. The difference is that Holmgren the GM had a great relationship with Holmgren the head coach. Ruskell the GM had a rocky relationship with Holmgren the head coach and having to tip toe around the head coach made his first 4 years suspect as to what he might have accomplished.

Where I'm in perfect agreement with all the Ruskell bashers is that if he is given three years to produce in an ideal relationghip with his hand picked staff, he's got to produce a winner or he should be relaced if only to shake up the apple cart and see if things settle in a different and more beneficial manner for the team. My feeling now is that he's not been given a chance with him really calling the shots. Of all the draft choices made by Ruskell, how many of them were really Holmgrens's choices that Ruskell felt compelled to make because of Holmgren's power in the organization? Besides Carlson, I'm sure there were others Holmgren lobbied for behind the scenes. Now, just like when Whisitt was fired and Holmgren felt relieved, Ruskell is out from under Mike's shadow. We need to see how that work first before we tear it up and half a season isn't nearly enough time to do so.

Let Holmgren go to his hometown team of San Fran and run them into the ground. Its a double win! We avoid a crappy GM and allow him to sign with a divion rival!

Everyone sucks at their first job. Did anyone of you do a good job on your first job. Holmy, should get a pass on his first GM job.

Regardless what anyone says Holmy was not bad as GM. He was average. Mitch in the morning and H. Millen compared Russkell and Holmy. It was concluded that Holmy had better drafts and more impact on the team. So I would not consider that to bad.

I'm all for Holmy coming back.

CWEH - I'm sure the Patriots regret hiring Belichick. He sure didn't learn from his mistakes in Cleveland did he?

"Everyone sucks at their first job. Did anyone of you do a good job on your first job. Holmy, should get a pass on his first GM job."

Ruskell's in his first job as GM too and he's already learned some painful lessons but I don't see him making the same mistake twice. No more transistion tags, no more trading first round choices, etc. Ruskell should get a pass on his early work as GM too and be judged on his more recent moves now that he's gotten his own people on staff and had a couple of very good drafts.

He's obviously still trying to get something together this season that will work for the Seahawks looking at his recent personnel moves. Next off-season, I'm sure we'll see him start in on the offensive line and running backs if Rankin doesn't show the ability to do the job.

Although I love Holmgren, bringing him back would be a clean sweep of the house and at least another three or four years while he builds the team again with a new head coach and staff. I think this team still has good talent that could be molded into a contender with a few additions and doesn't need to be broken up yet.

I want to see Ruskell/Mora have a legitimate chance to 1) see what this team has and what the weaknesses are (which is what they're in the process of finding out now that players are back healthy), 2) have a couple of drafts and free agency periods to do something about those problems and fill the holes discovered, and 3, have the chance to have players master their schemes and play instinctively rather than how they're playing now which is somewhat tenatively. It took Holmgren 6 years to get all of that together and finally produce a winner. We should at least give Ruskell/Mora half that time to do the same.

If they can't, you'll have no argument from me moving on to another GM and letting him hire his head coach and staff and going into multi-year re-build mode but right now, it's premature. How well could this team perform on offense with an above average LT added, Sims at LG, Unger at center, a new upcoming talent at RG, Locklear or Willis at RT plus the addition of a quality RB and top WR? How well could the defense function with a hotshot pass rusher and one more top quality defensive back be it a safety or cornerback to help handle those big NFC West receivers? To me, the addition of those players could turn this team into a top flight contender nad negate the need for a long drawn out rebuild.

We're talking the adddition of 6 players. A LT, RG, RB, WR, DE or DT, S or CB. If this team could turn the corner based on just 6 players, I don't see the logic of busting the team up and making it a certainty that it will be years before we're back as a year to year contender in the league again. On the other hand, it's possible we could pick up those 6 players (I'm talking top quality talent) in two drafts and free agent periods and have a young strong contending team on the field by 2011. I want to make certain that isn't much of a possibility before I tear something down that may be just a handful of players away from being great.

Ruskell doesn't get a free pass forever in my book either but he gets the chance to do it without conflict from being in the shadow of Holmgren and with enough time to have a chance to identify the problems and fix them before he gets cast off.

But it is a nice thought. Our QB will be 35 next year, and his arm was never Brady's, or Farve's, or even Collins'. Beck has one, maybe two years left.

This team was built to win now. You can continue down this path. I'm all for it. It makes it entertaining. This team, as Holmgren said before playing last year, "It is tough when you go into a game an realize on a talent level you don't have much of a chance."

I'll leave it to you to spin it.

Holmgren or no, our defense has regressed. We have the second highest payroll in football. Seattle is the 2008 M's.

random thoughts...

I don't buy the notion that Ruskell has been under Holmgren's thumb the last few years. How would it make any sense whatsoever to strip Holmgren of GM duties, bring in an ambitious assistant GM to be the Hawks' GM, and then allow Holmgren to run the show? Defeats the whole purpose. It's certainly pretty hypocritical to say Ruskell was Holmgren's puppet in one sentence, and then give Ruskell credit for SBXL in the next.... or was it Holmy that was responsible for bringing in Chuck Darby and Joe Jurevicius?? Can't have it both ways now. Watching Ruskell here for the last 5 years, he definitely has a "My way or the highway" attitude, which leads me to my next point....

seems like a lot of folks paint Holmgren as having this monstrous ego and Ruskell as being some kind of humble "Aww shucks" kind of guy. Come on, both of these guys have huge egos.... think the Hutch negotiations didn't demonstrate Ruskell's ego? Or Julian Peterson.... take a pay cut or I'll ship your arse to Detroit...

The only way I want to see Holmgen back in Seattle is if he is personally involved in developing Hass' replacement.... hmmmm, a GM/QB coach?? Ok, I'm joking..... well, half-joking. I would love to see what he could do with Jake Locker....

Seriously though, it would be a little weird/awkward to have him come back after the way his career here unfolded. Although I agree with the folks who point out he wasn't that bad as a GM and actually brought in a lot of top-quality talent.

I don't want to see Ruskell fired.... yet. But I do want to see him humble himself, admit that offensive linemen are as foreign to him as linebackers were to Holmy and bring in an assistant/consultant who has a proven track record with offensive linemen to help him draft and pursue free agents. If he can't right the ship in that area pretty quick, he should be fired. How many OL has he drafted who haven't worked out?

In the end, I find it kinda sad actually that the Ruskell/Holmgren pairing didn't work out. Should have been a perfect combination.... offensive-minded Holmy + defensive-minded Ruskell. Excellence comes from the top down. Perhaps the last couple seasons this team has been been reaping the results of 2 men putting their own egos above winning?? I don't know, I just think disharmony in the front office can show itself on the field. And it isn't fair or accurate to blame it all on one guy...

It is so fun to watch this blog and these blow hard on it, Facts, TRs D cant get off the field and hasnt been able to for some time now. Trs O cant stay on the field and hasnt been able to for some time now.Fact, our record has moved to more to the right side since Trs take over. WTF are you watching people are we spending our hard earned money following this team for worse results every year.oh yea 1more Fact our payroll is the 2 highest in the league. Please tell me any biz that would accept these results. Well 1 the shehawk good guy softy team in politically correct lib Seattle.

BIllt--Ruskell inherited a team with MUCH more talent than the team Holmgren inherited. Also, after 4 years, Holmgren began to win, and win BIG. Ruskell is now in his fourth year manning the helm, and its been all his way for several years. Compare what Holmgren did in his third, fourth and fifth years with what Ruskell is doing in those same years. Holmy was getting better, Ruskell has tanked.

Also, Holmgren had proven himself as an offensive genius and won one super bowl while coaching two. Ruskell has done what as a GM or coach? Oh, yeah--nothing except get worse EVERY YEAR for four years.

The most important thing to me is that Holmgren has shown humility, and the ability and inclination to change and learn from his mistakes. Ruskell on the other hand has not shown the same. And four years is much to long to see continued decline on the offensive line. There is no excuse for that situation, only a reason: incompetence.

Plus, Ruskells hand picked coach has shown a stunning lack of leadership in every press oonference. Accountability demanded from players, yet no mention of accountability from coaches. Holmgren often blamed himself for losses, yet if we are to listen to Mora, its all due to players failure to do thier jobs well. To me, its pretty obvious that in most cases, the results were due just as much, if not more, to poor coaching and poor schemes. No matter how well those players play, the offensive and defensive schemes are not going to take us anywhere. Things need to change in a hurry, and Mora's manner has been unprofessional and completely lacking in leadership.I havent been so bitterly disappointed since Tom Flores gave us the 1992 season after talking all offseason about "stretching the field" and "stretching the defense" while all year long all that was stretched was Hawkfans patience.

Ruskell's moves as GM often hamstrung Holmgren, not the other way around. Anyway, the players drafted and signed the last three years have pretty much all been guys Ruskell wanted and chose. Those who werent in that category (Weaver, Morris, Engram) were dumped regardless of talent or character. So I am really baffled at how any of this seasons crapitude can be layed at Holmgren's feet.

Giving Ruskell 4 more years is ridiculous. All I can say, is there better be some serious improvement across the board, from players to coaches, during this season and after in the offseason, or Ruskell will be in the hottest seat in the NFL, and rightfully so.

I'm all for giving Ruskell one more season and if we don't see results, can him. I am a Ruskell fan, I think he drafts great individual talents, and always looks like a wiz in free agency and after the draft but I'm not sure why its not translating to on the field success. But I am fed up, give him one more draft and then he has to earn everything after that.