Mike Holmgren's Legacy

[Packer Brother]

Recruited Reggie. Won a SB. Helped make the franchise relevant again.

How will you remember his tenure here? Should he get into Canton?

 

[lambeaulambo]

Um...no. His lack of success other than SF/GB is the reason.

 

[Packer Brother]

Um...no. His lack of success other than SF/GB is the reason.

He was only head coach in GB & Seattle. One SB win here. Also did a lot with Seattle.

 

[rmontro]

I will always wonder if the Packers would have won another Super Bowl if Holmgren had stayed.
As for Canton, sure, why not? He coached teams to three Super Bowl appearances, and was on staff in SF for two of their Super Bowl wins.

 

[lambeaulambo]

He was only head coach in GB & Seattle. One SB win here. Also did a lot with Seattle.

what about Cleveland?

 

[Packer Brother]

what about Cleveland?

He was president, not coach.

 

[lambeaulambo]

Don't think that wont hinder his chances...

 

[AmishMafia]

Holmgren, the guy who was more concerned with getting more power than winning the 2nd superbowl. When he eventually got the power, he quickly realized he was in, way over his head.

 

[weeds]

I remember Holmgren's introductory presser. You just KNEW good things were going to happen. He had that S.E.G. like he knew something the rest of us didn't.

In conjunction with Wolf coming in...whom I also worshipped from afar...You could just tell the old Packers were gone. Honestly, just getting rid of the Judge and placing Harlan in that position changed the direction of this team.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Holmgren definitely deserves huge credit for helping turn around the Packers but in my opinion doesn't have the credentials to be considered for the Hall of Fame.

 

[JohnnyBlood]

Not sure that Mike is quite HOF worthy, but there is probably be a better argument than I first thought. He has been with 3 organizations that have gone to or won a superbowl either as OC or has HC. And he has won 3 of them (2 with SF and 1 with GB).

I know the manner in which he left GB has left a bad taste in most people's mouths, but I think objectively, he was better than we give him credit for. That said, I'm still not quite sure he is HOF worthy. If he figured out a way to get Gabe Wilkins to stay on the field or was able to figure out sooner that the Broncos were on using Sharpe as a decoy to draw LeRoy away from the line of scrimmage, then we might win that one and then he would have a lot stronger argument.

 

[rmontro]

I recall when he took Seattle to the Super Bowl, there was a lot of talk that he could become the first coach to win a Super Bowl with two different teams. Of course, that didn't happen...

 

[ARPackFan]

Holmgren, the guy who was more concerned with getting more power than winning the 2nd superbowl. When he eventually got the power, he quickly realized he was in, way over his head.

I completly agree. I think if Holmgren had kept 100% of his focus on the Packers and stayed with the organization that the pieces were in place to make more SB runs. Why would any HC want to leave a team with a HOF caliber QB? Ironic that the same guy who preaches the "TEAM" for players doesn't want to share power for building the team.

Not HOF worthy

 

[Half Empty]

Isn't this exactly the kind of thread we were looking for BEFORE training camp?

 

[Wi. Mike now in Florida]

Holmgren, the guy who was more concerned with getting more power than winning the 2nd superbowl. When he eventually got the power, he quickly realized he was in, way over his head.

I wish I would of kept the article in the Milwaukee paper a couple years ago.
It was about Holmgren coaching the Packers and stated "any trained ape " could of did Holmgren job.

Some of the reasons were:
#1....Ron Wolf was running the show.
#2...He had Favre throwing Unthinkable touch downs.
#3...Five coaches from his staff went on to be head coaches.
#4...Reggie White had a divine intervention.
#5...Fritz Shermer was telling Holmgren how to call plays.

There many more I can't think of.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Not sure that Mike is quite HOF worthy, but there is probably be a better argument than I first thought. He has been with 3 organizations that have gone to or won a superbowl either as OC or has HC. And he has won 3 of them (2 with SF and 1 with GB).

I don't think being the offensive coordinator of a Super Bowl winning team should be considered a strong credential for making it to the HOF.

As a side note, Holmgren only won a single Super Bowl with the 49ers while being their offensive coordinator.

 

[rmontro]

think if Holmgren had kept 100% of his focus on the Packers and stayed with the organization that the pieces were in place to make more SB runs.

I've always had a slightly different take on this. Wolf only stayed on one more year after Holmgren left. If Holmgren wanted a GM spot so bad, Wolf could have passed it off a year early to get him to stay. Wouldn't have been any worse than Sherman.

It was about Holmgren coaching the Packers and stated "any trained ape " could of did Holmgren job.

If it was that simple, you'd think we would have won more than one Super Bowl. Anyway, Favre needs strong coaching, and I've always thought Holmgren was the best coach for Favre.

Reading this thread, it sounds like there's still a lot of bitterness toward Holmgren in Green Bay.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I've always had a slightly different take on this. Wolf only stayed on one more year after Holmgren left. If Holmgren wanted a GM spot so bad, Wolf could have passed it off a year early to get him to stay. Wouldn't have been any worse than Sherman.

I'm not sure Holmgren would have done a better job than Sherman as the Packers were actually pretty successful (44-20) during the first four years of him serving double duty. On the other hand the Seahawks only went 31-33 with Holmgren as their GM, not winning a single playoff game during that time.

 

[rmontro]

I'm not sure Holmgren would have done a better job than Sherman as the Packers were actually pretty successful (44-20) during the first four years of him serving double duty. On the other hand the Seahawks only went 31-33 with Holmgren as their GM, not winning a single playoff game during that time.

Hard to compare. I'd say Sherman inherited a better team, and they had Favre, who counts for a lot of intangibles.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Holmgren, the guy who was more concerned with getting more power than winning the 2nd superbowl. When he eventually got the power, he quickly realized he was in, way over his head.

That doesn't come across as bitter or anything...

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Hard to compare. I'd say Sherman inherited a better team, and they had Favre, who counts for a lot of intangibles.

You might be right about it although both teams had a similar record the season before Sherman (Packers 9-7 in 2000 with him already being head coach) and Holmgren (Seahawks 8-8 in 1998) took over as general manager.

Nevertheless four years should have been enough to turn it to around for Holmgren if he was that great of a GM.

 

[rmontro]

Nevertheless four years should have been enough to turn it to around for Holmgren if he was that great of a GM.

Yeah, I'm certainly not trying to say Holmgren was a great GM by any means. I just said he wasn't any worse than Sherman. Whether that is true or not, neither one of them were the ultimate answer in that position. The question is would it have been worth giving him more power to keep him around longer as coach?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The question is would it have been worth giving him more power to keep him around longer as coach?

I don't think so. While it works with Belichick in New England I prefer a different person than the head coach being in charge of final roster decisions and all administrative tasks that come with the job.

 

[gopkrs]

I sort of blame Holmgren for the 2nd superbowl loss because he did not keep anyone in the backfield to block the blitzer. But I will always love his line after winning the superbowl. Something like everyone wants to win the superbowl..."But it means more to us."
Because it is the Lomardi trophy.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I sort of blame Holmgren for the 2nd superbowl loss because he did not keep anyone in the backfield to block the blitzer.

The Packers not beig able to contain the Broncos running game was the reason they lost Super Bowl XXXII. Favre was only sacked once during that game.