holmgren on KJR, breaking down the "poison pill"

dhdawg

dhdawg

New Fish
http://www.sportsradiokjr.com/media...-mitchinthemorning/34-mike-holmgren-24432554/
tells the entire story at least in his words, heard about it and listened to the podcast, some decent audio.
If they still had hutch in 2006 they probably win that game in chicago (should've won it anyway) and then beat the saints, doubt they beat Indy but you never know. Tim Ruskell really reached Bavasi territory in that situation
When Hutch left they lost their identity
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ruskell is like Wally Walker. Took the franchise to the finals on another mans work and then quickly destroyed the franchise that very offseason.

Losing Hutchinson like you said was the beginning of the end. It would be like if the Seahawks let Sherman or Thomas go right now. The OL was the reason that team was so good and they lost a HOF OL in his prime all due to incompetence.
 
I understand what minneasota did was completely bush league and the rule should've never been there in the first place, but as holmgren says it was Ruskell's fucktarded decision to transition tag him in the first place, I love how he said he learned it from Clayton. maybe I'll call into clayton's show on Saturday and ask him about it
 
http://www.sportsradiokjr.com/media/podcast-mitch-in-the-morning-ondemand-mitchinthemorning/34-mike-holmgren-24432554/
tells the entire story at least in his words, heard about it and listened to the podcast, some decent audio.
If they still had hutch in 2006 they probably win that game in chicago (should've won it anyway) and then beat the saints, doubt they beat Indy but you never know. Tim Ruskell really reached Bavasi territory in that situation
When Hutch left they lost their identity
Click to expand...

I don't know if they would have beaten the Saints. The Saints were and still are ridiculous and home and Holmgren never had a good Seattle road team. Even had we kept Hutch, we still would have had Tim Ruskell GMing the team. Best case all of those 9-7 teams become 11-5 teams and we still lose in the playoffs.
 
I understand but the saints were beaten so badly by Chicago after we played them toe to toe at soldier. I just feel like the holmgren era could've been way more successful if the identity of the team didn't leave in the middle of the night.
With or without hutch we don't beat Indy regardless IMO so the whole conversation is moot
 
Remember if you keep Hutch then no Petersen so who is to say the Hawks even beat Chicago still? Petersen had a monster game.

I can't see them beating the Saints in their house either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top