coolnerd
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Holmgren named president of Browns (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter coolnerd
- Start date
I thought this contract offer (supposed) was interesting in that it resembles one of a player. Is he really going to stay there for 10 years? That would make him 71 when it runs out. What is the fun of making all that money only to be 71 when you retire? And if it is really a "five year deal masked into a 10 year deal", only so it looks "cool", that is just dumb.
duece2626
Footballguy
Wilbur Wood
Footballguy
Let me ask a real dumb question.
When did it become necessary for certain NFL teams to create this new layer of "management", that of the highly paid "President of Football Operations" (or whatever the heck the title is)? Yeah, the Parcells and Holmgren role. Bring in a $5M per year titular figurehead, yet still invest in a General Manager and Head Coach.
There are still very successful NFL franchises that simply have the classic GM/Head Coach model and the team President focuses solely on the "business side" of football (which I personally wouldn't want guys like Holmgren/Tuna cutting the new stadium deal or Marketing program.
It seems like a very expensive addition to a team's cost structure and of dubious benefit.
When did it become necessary for certain NFL teams to create this new layer of "management", that of the highly paid "President of Football Operations" (or whatever the heck the title is)? Yeah, the Parcells and Holmgren role. Bring in a $5M per year titular figurehead, yet still invest in a General Manager and Head Coach.
There are still very successful NFL franchises that simply have the classic GM/Head Coach model and the team President focuses solely on the "business side" of football (which I personally wouldn't want guys like Holmgren/Tuna cutting the new stadium deal or Marketing program.
It seems like a very expensive addition to a team's cost structure and of dubious benefit.
Jack Burton
Footballguy
Why was he not a good GM? Is it wrong to think that Holmgren was the best thing that ever happened to the Seahawks?He's had success everywhere he's been and this is a guy you should want in your football organization, period.
The Man with the Plan
Footballguy
That's enough money for his children's great-great-great-grandchildren to be set for life.
Limp Ditka
Footballguy
Cleveland >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Green BayNot a bad paycheck...10 years....Though, if his wife hated Green Bay...what is she going to think of Cleveland?Good luck to the man...he will need it to fix the mess that they have got going on there.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Man with the Plan
Footballguy
Didn't he have his GM rights taken away from him in Seattle? Now Cleveland's paying him for a similar job that he (according to his previous employers) failed at. He drafted Hutchinson and Alexander and traded for Hasselbeck but he (i think) also traded a 1st round pick for Deion Branch.
Limp Ditka
Footballguy
He failed at doing both jobs (GM and coach). Doing one, and only one, is an entirely different thing.
lyon812
Footballguy
You're mistaken. He's had success as a coach, and the perception of "best thing that ever happened" is precisely why a number of misguided media professionals are thinking with their hearts rather than their heads. He's just not a good GM. I don't think he's very good at evaluating talent, and his few hits are outweighed by the numerous misses. One reason Seattle wasn't eager to bring him back into the fold was that their team needs to rebuild. They're trying to treat this seriously, and to that end have hired a top recruiting firm to assist them in the objective process/analysis of hiring their next GM. They don't want to make a kneejerk decision; they want to bring in someone that's a strong evaluator of talent, a real personnel guy. They need to make the best choice, not the most popular one. However, I think the best descriptions are here:
http://sea.scout.com/2/816748.html
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/307599-...for-seahawks-gm
http://www.multiupload.com/38Y80F0ZV6
I'll quote from the first:
"Mike Holmgren ranks as one of the worst GM's for drafting during the 1999 to 2002 seasons (see rankings below). It is widely accepted that players drafted during the first round should be at least starters on a team. The second and third rounds should provide needed depth and an occasional starter. Rounds 4 through 7 are typically unpredictable, but most assume that it is a "bonus" if any player drafted past round 3 makes the team.
Holmgren drafted 38 players during his GM years, with 6 first round picks. Of those 38 players, only 5 became consistent productive starters - Shaun Alexander, Darrell Jackson, Steve Hutchinson, Ken Lucas, and Rocky Bernard. Obviously, trying to rank the rest of the drafted players has an element of subjectivity. It would appear that the Seahawks produced a total of 8 productive draft picks (players making a significant contribution for their team, for a significant period of time), during the four years in question. This number should be much higher, especially considering the 6 first round picks. Of the 6 first round draft picks, only 2 (Alexander and Hutchinson) became consistent productive starters.
Holmgren's failures were not just on the defensive side of the ball. Many have suggested that Holmgren's drafts were borderline "genius" when it came to offensive talent - he just lacked the same insight on the defensive side. Though he had some clear successes on offense, he had some errors as well. Wasting 3rd round picks on Brock Huard and Karsten Bailey in 1999 clearly lacked "brilliance". Bailey appeared to be a rather big reach when he was taken that early. Chris McIntosh was a rather colossal bust in 2000. Granted, injuries shortened his career, but he refused to do anything more at the combine than lift that year.
His strength catapulted him up the draft board, and some had whispered early that the Seahawks had drafted "damaged goods". Probably not true, but it appears that the Seahawks were willing to take a risk on McIntosh that obviously did not pay off. Koren Robinson disappointed from day one, and became nothing more than a journeyman. Holmgren seemed to ignore the past problems Jerramy Stevens had prior to the draft, most certainly enamored by his physical ability. This was another risky pick that didn't work out.
Maurice Morris was a reach as a second round pick, but more specifically, he was taken specifically as Alexander's backup. Not a good use of a second round pick when the defense is hemorrhaging. Morris has had some productive games during the past two seasons, but that was after spending a good portion of his first four years on the bench.
Holmgren gets very high marks for the players that he drafted that are still productive. One is a sure Hall of Famer (Hutchinson), and the other is Seattle's only league MVP (Alexander). The interesting thing about both of those picks is that they "fell" to Seattle, and really were not clear "need" picks. I read an article this week (sorry, I have done so much reading this past week that I am unable to find the article that I was reading), where Holmgren was talking about his drafts, and he mentioned that they had the greatest success when they selected the "best athlete available" (Hutchinson and Alexander), rather than trying to fill a specific need (Lamar King, Brock Huard, and Ike Charleton to name a few). This quote was prior to the 2002 draft, and it seems that Holmgren clearly made the same mistake again in insisting on drafting a TE (Stevens), and needing a DE (Palepoi)."
kaa
Footballguy
Holmgren acquired just about the entire starting lineup of the super bowl team...which he coached. Holmgren drafted several stud players, including future HOF RB Shawn Alexander and Steve Hutchinson. He traded for their super bowl all-pro QB Matt Hasselback. He was also NOT the guy who traded 1st round picks for WR Deion Branch - he had been relieved of his GM duties by that time. The media has a narrative going that Holmgren sucked as a GM. That was a narrative established before the players he drafted and acquired had fully developed into superstars in Seattle. If anything, ownership in Seattle is inept because they were far too impatient with Holmgren. Seattle's mistake is Cleveland's opportunity.
kaa
Footballguy
See, this is part of the problem with the narrative. Holmgren didn't do the branch deal. The Deion Branch deal was done after they fired him as GM. Holmgren was the guy who traded Galloway to Dallas for Jerry's two 1st rounders, one of which Holmgren turns into Shaun Alexander.
kaa
Footballguy
Part of the problem for Holmgren was that Hasselback and Alexander didn't explode onto the scene and dominate from the start. It took them 2-3 years to really come into their own. But like I say Seattle ownership was impatient and figured they were busts, so they fired Holmgren as GM. But then they blossomed and Holmgren's track record looks a WHOLE lot different now than it did when he was fired.
kaa
Footballguy
I think that's perception and not reality. He traded Galloway and got two 1st rounders from Jerry Jones. He used one on Shaun Alexander. The other on Koren Robinson. You could sit there and argue he blew 1 first rounder. You could focus on that all day and call him a lousy talent evaluator. The problem is you are ignoring that he drafted a hall of fame RB with the other pick. I think any unbiased analyst, when asked if it is worth trading Galloway for two rookies, one a HOF RB and the other a bust, you'd say that was an outstanding trade. You'd take that result every time.
lyon812
Footballguy
Of the ~ 28 starters/regulars on the 2005 Seahawks, Holmgren was responsible for 9 of them. 7 were offensive. He picked up Hasselbeck, yet kept him behind Dilfer. He traded Green for Fred Vinson. He franchised Joey Galloway and was upset that Dallas matched it. He drafted Jerramy Stevens despite him being a headcase. Engram and Tobeck were good free agent signings, but he let a lot of players go, including Daniels and Adams on the DL.
I recommend reading the post above mine with multiple links. "Several stud players" is blatantly wrong. His talent-poor drafts hurt the Seahawks. Only 5 players of the 38 he drafted were consistent starters. His inability to judge defensive talent and to draft renewable offensive talent led to them falling slowly down a cliff from 2006 onwards.
Actually, the Seattle media has been lambasting the Seahawks for not immediately forking over as much money, control, and years as Holmgren wants. The Seattle Times seems to write about it daily, and a number of fansites were full of people who think fondly of Holmgren. Anyway, I'm curious about the players you feel that he drafted and acquired that turned into superstars. Alexander and Hutchinson, sure. Jackson was a solid receiver. Who else?1999: Round 1 - Lamar King Round 3 - Brock HuardRound 3 - Karsten Bailey Round 4 - Antonio Cochran Round 5 - Floyd Wedderburn Round 5 - Charlie Rogers Round 6 - Steve JohnsonYear 2000Round 1 - Shaun AlexanderRound 1 - Chris McIntosh Round 2 - Ike Charlton Round 3 - Darrell Jackson Round 4 - Marcus Bell Round 4 - Isiah Kacyvenski Round 6 - James Williams Round 6 - Tim Watson Round 6 - John HilliardYear 2001Round 1 - Koren Robinson Round 1 - Steve Hutchinson Round 2 - Ken Lucas Round 3 - Heath Evans Round 4 - Orlando Huff Round 4 - Curtis Fuller Round 4 - Floyd Womack Round 5 - Alex Bannister Round 6 - Josh Booty Round 7 - Harold Blackmon Round 7 - Dennis Norman Round 7 Kris KocurekYear 2002Round 1 - Jeremy StevensRound 2 - Maurice Morris Round 2- Anton Palepoi Round 3 - Kris Richard Round 4 - Terreal Bierra Round 5 - Rocky BernardRound 5 - Ryan HannamRound 5 - Matt HillRound 6 - Craig Jarrett Round 7 - Jeff KellyLook, I understand Holmgren was a good coach. He was very popular, and he did some good things with free agents--but not as a GM. I'm not trying to tear the guy down, I actually liked him. I'm just very relieved that Seattle didn't make the mistake of bringing him back. They need to go in a new direction with someone who's simply better at evaluating talent through the draft.
Last edited by a moderator:
lyon812
Footballguy
Three points, since I just typed a long response:1. Galloway was franchised. Dallas matched him to an offer sheet while he was franchised. Holmgren didn't want to trade Galloway.
2. His drafting of Alexander does not make him a good talent evaluator. Please refer to my post above this, and consult his draft history.
3. To illustrate this, if a person drafts two very good talents, three above-average talents, thirty-two crappy talents, is he a good talent evaluator?
Jimmy James
Footballguy
With the Dolphins and Parcells, I think it was a mix of doing what was necessary to sell the team and marketing a team coming off of 1-15. In that context, it is probably well worth it. There is also some value -- Parcells is responsible for Sparano, which seems to have worked out well. I imagine that Cleveland is looking for a combination of marketing sizzle and Holmgren putting the right people into place. He understands the business of football well enough, even if you don't think talent evaluation is his strength. He can get a GM for that and crow at the successes. These are not hard jobs. They're good jobs to have at 71. My guess is that Holmgren's wife is going to know relatively little about Cleveland other than where to shop. He can run this team 2 days a week in the offseason and 4 days a week during the season, most likely.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Ive been both places...and will easily say...you are incorrect.Cleveland >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Green BayNot a bad paycheck...10 years....Though, if his wife hated Green Bay...what is she going to think of Cleveland?Good luck to the man...he will need it to fix the mess that they have got going on there.
Last edited by a moderator:
kaa
Footballguy
Holmgren was GM from 1999-2002.Productive draft picks:
Shaun Alexander
Steve Hutchinson
Darrell Jackson
Ken Lucas
Rocky Bernard
Antonio Cochran
Jerramy Stevens
Maurice Morris
Productive players acquired via trades or free agency:
Matt Hasselback
John Randle
Chad Eaton
Levon Kirkland
Bobby Engram
In 4 years as GM, he brought in 3 bona-fide studs: Alexander, Hutchinson, and Hasselback. I don't think you understand the magnitude of that. If a GM can do that for a decade, you're talking about 7-8 major playmakers in the starting 22 at any given time. That makes you a dominant football team.
kaa
Footballguy
Sometimes, when a program is going really well, you hear about a team having 6 pro bowlers in one year, and we're supposed to be completely amazed at that level of excellence. Holmgren, by acquiring 3 all-pro talents in 4 years (Alexander, Hasselback, Hutchinson) was on pace to produce that sort of talent level as GM.
nxmehta
Footballguy
Let's play a fun game and look at how many people we recognize from drafts 10 years ago! Here's a random team's draft picks:Year 1999Round 1 - Damien WoodyRound 1 - Andy KatzenmoyerRound 2 - Kevin FaulkRound 3 - Tony GeorgeRound 5 - Derrick FletcherRound 6 - Marcus WashingtonRound 7 - Michael BishopRound 7 - Sean MoreyYear 2000Round 2 - Adrian KlemmRound 3 - J.R. RedmondRound 4 - Greg Robinson-RandallRound 5 - Dave StachelskiRound 5 - Jeff MarriottRound 6 - Antwan HarrisRound 6 - Tom BradyRound 6 - David NugentRound 7 - Casey TisdaleRound 7 - Patrick PassYear 2001Round 1 - Richard SeymourRound 2 - Matt LightRound 3 - Brock WilliamsRound 4 - Kenyatta JonesRound 4 - Jabari HollowayRound 4 - Hakim AkbarRound 6 - Arther LoveRound 6 - Leonard MyersRound 7 - Owen PochmanRound 7 - T.J. TurnerYear 2002Round 1 - Daniel GrahamRound 2 - Deion BranchRound 4 - Rohan DaveyRound 4 - Jarvis GreenRound 4 - Antwoine WomackRound 7 - David GivensOut of 34 picks, this mysterious team, widely considered to be one of the greatest drafting teams of the last decade, hit 4 pro bowlers in 1999-2002 (Woody, Brady, Seymour and Light). The Seahawks hit 3 (Alexander, Hutchinson, Robinson). I'm dropping one pro bowler from each team because they were selected as special teamers. Is 4/34 pro bowlers considered bad (putting aside the fact that one of those picks was arguably the greatest draft pick of all time)? I guess since you think that 3/38 is bad, then probably yes.What if we instead just look at decent starters instead of studs? This mystery team has around maybe, I dunno, 5? 6? Something like Faulk, Graham, Branch, Green, Givens. I'd say those names compare somewhat surprisingly closely to those of Maurice Morris, Jerramy Stevens, Darrell Jackson, Rocky Bernard, Ken Lucas. Sure, the Seahawks players are a bit weaker, but it's not night and day here.I'm not saying that Holmgren is some kind of drafting guru by any means. It looks like he has yet to hit on any bigtime defensive players which is surely a concern. Still though, if you compare him to what many people consider a gold standard, then he is by NO means "bad". He's probably about as average as any other decent GM.
Last edited by a moderator:
With a team like the Browns, and specifically owner Randy Lerner, I think this added layer is much needed. Randy Lerner, and his father before him, have made numerous organizational errors that has lead to structural reboots every couple of years. I believe this will be the 5th organizational structure the Browns have had since their 1999 return. The most frustrating aspect of these reorgs is that with each, it is reported that Lerner is spending time with other successful NFL owners to see what works for them to help identify the proper way to structure his Browns. It just hasn't worked for him. Holmgren is a respected football veteran. With experience in both coaching and as a GM I believe he can finally get the proper pieces in place, get everyone working on the same page, and start building organizational stability.Time will tell if Holgren will be a success in Cleveland, or another in a long line of mistakes, but separating Lerner from the hiring process of the guys running the day-to-day operations of the team is a win for Cleveland fans.
wadegarrett
FFA Legend™
Good thing they didn't hire him as GM then.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
Who was in charge of the draft in Seattle from 1999-2004? I thought it was Ted Thompson who drafted Alexander and Hutchinson (as well as several notable busts, including Koren Robinson and Marcus Tubbs).
I've always thought Green Bay got the best years of Holmgren when he was young and hungry. By the time he left, his ego had grown so huge that I think it affected his ability to make decisions, and certainly cost the Packers a fourth Lombardi the year they lost to Denver as a double digit favorite. Maybe at this stage in his life he is better off in an executive position. I definitlely would not want him on the sidelines.
I've always thought Green Bay got the best years of Holmgren when he was young and hungry. By the time he left, his ego had grown so huge that I think it affected his ability to make decisions, and certainly cost the Packers a fourth Lombardi the year they lost to Denver as a double digit favorite. Maybe at this stage in his life he is better off in an executive position. I definitlely would not want him on the sidelines.
Incogneto
Footballguy
As a Seahawk fan, I breathed a sigh of relief when he signed with the Browns. I do not want him within 1000 miles of Seattle!
As a GM, he was awful (ok, he got lucky a couple times, but even a blind squirrel can find a nut) and lost the tittle. As Coach, he was the most conservative coach ever, and pissed off fans a lot.
Cleveland, enjoy him! I will also say that his first order of business in Cleveland will be to bring in a young QB, and build him into a franchise QB. I wonder if he will attempt to do this with Brady Quinn. He has shown flashes of 'good' late this season.
As a GM, he was awful (ok, he got lucky a couple times, but even a blind squirrel can find a nut) and lost the tittle. As Coach, he was the most conservative coach ever, and pissed off fans a lot.
Cleveland, enjoy him! I will also say that his first order of business in Cleveland will be to bring in a young QB, and build him into a franchise QB. I wonder if he will attempt to do this with Brady Quinn. He has shown flashes of 'good' late this season.
babydemon90
Footballguy
I think there is alot more to consider as his qualifications then "talent evaluator"
Bobcat10
Footballguy
lyon812
Footballguy
Holmgren was the Executive Vice President/General Manager. Ted Thompson was his subordinate/partner GM (he came on board in 2000). You raise a very valid point, that it's hard to know how much of the blame for poor scouting lies on Holmgren's shoulders. Holmgren was above him, so he's ultimately responsible. The problem with Holmgren is that people routinely attribute outlandish qualities to him as an executive.CletiusMaximus said:
I mean, we’ve seen in this thread:
1. “Holmgren acquired just about the entire starting lineup of the super bowl team...which he coached”
False.
2. “Holmgren drafted several stud players”.
False.
3. “That was a narrative established before the players he drafted and acquired had fully developed into superstars in Seattle”
False. Superstars aside from Alexander (who wasn’t waited on; started in his second year) and Hutch: None.
I have nothing against the Browns or Holmgren, and hope he’s what your franchise needs. As Mr. Blond says, it could work out well by inserting a football mind under the Lerners. I just felt he wasn’t what the Seahawks need, and perceive him as receiving far too much undeserved credit, particularly regarding the Super Bowl team. He assembled half a team; solid offense, weak defense. Ruskell gutted the defense in 2005 and put together the second half of the puzzle--not to mention the mid-season signing of Joe Jurevicius, which kept the offense afloat with Jackson injured.
Another good article, read the bit by Mike Sando, now of ESPN but who covered the Seahawks for nine seasons for the Tacoma News-Tribune: http://www.fantasyaces.com/beta/news/thoug...eahawks-browns/
“Mike Sando: Mike Holmgren is a credible leader. I think he is a good administrator. I think he could be effective as the top man running an organization. It’s important to acknowledge and appreciate the many good things Holmgren accomplished in Seattle. It’s also important to resist embellishing his record as general manager in the name of sentiment.
Seattle was 31-33 in four years under Dennis Erickson. Seattle was 31-33 in four years with Holmgren as coach and general manager. Holmgren was fired as general manager. He did not win a postseason game until he had completed seven full seasons as head coach. I believe most good coaches with sufficient resources will win eventually if given enough time. Seven years is an eternity in the modern NFL.
By comparison, Jon Gruden stepped into a far more dysfunctional situation with Oakland in 1998. He went 38-26 in four seasons, winning two playoff games and leaving the Raiders — 28-36 in the four seasons before his arrival — in position for a Super Bowl run. In Green Bay, Holmgren went 38-26 in his first four regular seasons, collecting four playoff victories and sharing the credit with GM Ron Wolf.
For Seattle, bringing back Holmgren under the right terms could indeed make sense. Holmgren would not be coach and general manager, so the dynamic would be different. Holmgren brings credibility. He could help the Seahawks find their next quarterback. He could hire a GM with a strong background to do the scouting grunt work (Ted Thompson was that man for him in Seattle).”
(Though I think we could all agree that hopefully he wouldn’t hire Ted Thompson again!
)Anyway, best of luck to the Browns. I shouldn't let my relief spoil a big move for your franchise. I think with the right sort of scouting assistance and organizational structure, Holmgren's reputation could draw a lot of talent to your team.
Jack Burton
Footballguy
No way man.He was stripped of his GM duties because it was thought that it detracted from his abilities to coach not because he did a poor job. The move proved to be effective because from 2003 to 2007 they went 51-29 including four staight division titles.
The Seahawks' loss is Clevelands gain if you ask me.
Incogneto
Footballguy
Good thing he's not a GM, then.
Similar threads
