windward
NFL Historian
- Messages
- 18,689
- Reaction score
- 4,541
A few people round here have touted what a good job Mike Holmgren has done at Seattle esp in this year's playoffs with a banged up team and all and is supposed to be an example of what a good coach should be in relation to "The Worst Coach in the League" Bill Parcells.
Funny thing is, though it took Holmgren SEVEN seasons before he won his first playoff game in Seattle. He had a 31-33 mark his first four years as coach there (which ironically, was Seattle's record in the four years previous to his arrival ,95-98 under Dennis Erickson) Parcells has won 34 games in his four seasons here.
Now the question here is, was Holmgren inflexible and out of tune with the game? Could he not win with what he had in the past (Brett Favre)? Was the Big, Bad AFC West too tough for a Seattle team seemingly stuck in mediocrity? Or did it simply take time for Holmgren to collect all the pieces in Seattle?
After a Super Bowl appearence last year and a playoff win this year, it appears that Holmgren has built the Seahawks into a perennial contender in the NFC. One benefit the Seahawks have is the continuity developed throughout the organization over an eight year period. It's a process that probably promotes slower growth overall but gives a franchise greater sustainablity at the top then the notorious one year wonders that pop up every year. (The Patriots are the exception, rather than the rule in this case, and even that is ripe for debate, although not within the scope of this post.)
Another example in the AFC would be Bill Cowher, who from 1998-2000 won 7, 6 and 9 games. Was he fired? Of course not. Pittsburgh rebounded and is a perennial contender in the AFC.
But back to Parcells and the Holmgren example.I think that Dallas at this point is further along than Seattle was. I think we have better a better defense than Homgren's early Seattle teams and Romo's at a similar level to Hasselbeck circa 2003. Some may argue that if Parcells leaves in a year that we can't develop the continuity that Seattle has developed. Holmgren is a few years younger, true but Parcells has built an organizational philosophy that can still be followed by his successors if and when he leaves. Organizational philosophies go beyond one particular individual. I say Parcells needs one more year to really cement this team as a consistent contender in the NFC(i.e consecutive playoff berths, playoff wins, etc..) Add another pass rusher, tweak the 3-4 a bit continue to upgrade the OLINE and we may have something here, guys.
Continuity, folks, I think it works.
Funny thing is, though it took Holmgren SEVEN seasons before he won his first playoff game in Seattle. He had a 31-33 mark his first four years as coach there (which ironically, was Seattle's record in the four years previous to his arrival ,95-98 under Dennis Erickson) Parcells has won 34 games in his four seasons here.
Now the question here is, was Holmgren inflexible and out of tune with the game? Could he not win with what he had in the past (Brett Favre)? Was the Big, Bad AFC West too tough for a Seattle team seemingly stuck in mediocrity? Or did it simply take time for Holmgren to collect all the pieces in Seattle?
After a Super Bowl appearence last year and a playoff win this year, it appears that Holmgren has built the Seahawks into a perennial contender in the NFC. One benefit the Seahawks have is the continuity developed throughout the organization over an eight year period. It's a process that probably promotes slower growth overall but gives a franchise greater sustainablity at the top then the notorious one year wonders that pop up every year. (The Patriots are the exception, rather than the rule in this case, and even that is ripe for debate, although not within the scope of this post.)
Another example in the AFC would be Bill Cowher, who from 1998-2000 won 7, 6 and 9 games. Was he fired? Of course not. Pittsburgh rebounded and is a perennial contender in the AFC.
But back to Parcells and the Holmgren example.I think that Dallas at this point is further along than Seattle was. I think we have better a better defense than Homgren's early Seattle teams and Romo's at a similar level to Hasselbeck circa 2003. Some may argue that if Parcells leaves in a year that we can't develop the continuity that Seattle has developed. Holmgren is a few years younger, true but Parcells has built an organizational philosophy that can still be followed by his successors if and when he leaves. Organizational philosophies go beyond one particular individual. I say Parcells needs one more year to really cement this team as a consistent contender in the NFC(i.e consecutive playoff berths, playoff wins, etc..) Add another pass rusher, tweak the 3-4 a bit continue to upgrade the OLINE and we may have something here, guys.
Continuity, folks, I think it works.
The payoff is coming.
