Curt Warner Or Lynch?

[Hawktawk]

Sis I agree completely on both SA and Beast. Probably the only smoother runner than SA in the last 30 years was Dickerson.

Holmgren vs Knox is a much greater debate for me.

Holmgren inherited an Erickson team that was only out of the playoffs the previous year due to an officiating error. After an 8-2 start the team went 1-5 down the stretch and lost at home in the first round.As GM Holmgren made changes to the roster. Then 3 years of no postseason. First round losses in 2003 and 2004 including losing to the Rams 3 times in one season,last time at home.The awesome 2005 season and home playoff wins in 2006 and 2007. 2008 mailed it in at 4-12 on the way out the door.4 playoff wins in 10 seasons with the SB. 86 wins and 74 losses for a %.538 WPC in Seattle.

Knox first season demolished Denver 31-7 for a playoff win in his first try as a Hawk. Then the overwhelming upset of Miami in the Orange Bowl which raised the profile of the Hawks quite a while before anyone ever heard of Mike Holmgren. He only won one other playoff game in 9 seasons with some close calls but at 3 wins in 7 games his win percentage in the postseason betters Holmgrens. And his 1986 10-6 team that missed out on a freakish last weekend of tiebreakers might well have won the Superbowl. Knox finished with 80 wins to 63 losses over 9 seasons and nobody looked forward to playing Seattle in those years due to their physical style and solid defense. 3 playoff wins in 9 seasons with an AFC title appearance and Seattle's first division title. 80 wins and 63 losses for a %.559 WPC.

How about a little respect for what Knox accomplished here? He was a huge part of our history too.If nothing else he and Holmgren are 2A and 2 B whatever order one prefers.

[RiverDog]

Sis I agree completely on both SA and Beast. Probably the only smoother runner than SA in the last 30 years was Dickerson.

Holmgren vs Knox is a much greater debate for me.

Holmgren inherited an Erickson team that was only out of the playoffs the previous year due to an officiating error. After an 8-2 start the team went 1-5 down the stretch and lost at home in the first round.As GM Holmgren made changes to the roster. Then 3 years of no postseason. First round losses in 2003 and 2004 including losing to the Rams 3 times in one season,last time at home.The awesome 2005 season and home playoff wins in 2006 and 2007. 2008 mailed it in at 4-12 on the way out the door.4 playoff wins in 10 seasons with the SB. 86 wins and 74 losses for a %.538 WPC in Seattle.

Knox first season demolished Denver 31-7 for a playoff win in his first try as a Hawk. Then the overwhelming upset of Miami in the Orange Bowl which raised the profile of the Hawks quite a while before anyone ever heard of Mike Holmgren. He only won one other playoff game in 9 seasons with some close calls but at 3 wins in 7 games his win percentage in the postseason betters Holmgrens. And his 1986 10-6 team that missed out on a freakish last weekend of tiebreakers might well have won the Superbowl. Knox finished with 80 wins to 63 losses over 9 seasons and nobody looked forward to playing Seattle in those years due to their physical style and solid defense. 3 playoff wins in 9 seasons with an AFC title appearance and Seattle's first division title. 80 wins and 63 losses for a %.559 WPC.

How about a little respect for what Knox accomplished here? He was a huge part of our history too.If nothing else he and Holmgren are 2A and 2 B whatever order one prefers.

Holmgren inherited a mediocre club from Erickson then tore it apart and rebuilt it like he wanted it. The one thing I didn't like about Holmgren was his arrogance. He was his own GM, called his own plays, wouldn't do a TV show because he felt he was too busy. But he was a great coach, and like others have said, deserves respect. He gave us a lot of great football.

Likewise about Chuck Knox. He inherited a Patera team that was a lot better than what people were giving them credit for. Like Holmgren, Knox didn't put up with stupid mistakes. He got rid of a former #1 draft pick, Manu Tuiasosopo, because he committed a PF that lost the game for us. Holmgren's teams were quite often the least penalized, and heaven help you if you committed a turnover. Both Knox and Holmgren were tougher disciplinarians than Pete is, which is one of my base criticisms of Pete. All three were great coaches, and we were fortunate to have all of them on our side.

[c_hawkbob]

Holmgren over Knox for #2, fairly easily. IMO Patera gives Knox a good fight (although on the losing side) for #3. He was the perfect coach for us as an expansion squad.

Alexander wasn't always "soft", he was coached to step out of bounds before taking the hit. He was never "beastly" but he wasn't contact averse for most of his career (even though yes, he did become that). But still, there are very backs ever in the NFL with his combination of vision, balance and one cut instincts.

Sis, I second everything you said, especially paying Beast his due respect! I'm cool with disagreeing on who to take as a rookie, there is no wrong choice IMO.

[RiverDog]

Holmgren over Knox for #2, fairly easily. IMO Patera gives Knox a good fight (although on the losing side) for #3. He was the perfect coach for us as an expansion squad.

Alexander wasn't always "soft", he was coached to step out of bounds before taking the hit. He was never "beastly" but he wasn't contact averse for most of his career (even though yes, he did become that). But still, there are very backs ever in the NFL with his combination of vision, balance and one cut instincts.

Sis, I second everything you said, especially paying Beast his due respect! I'm cool with disagreeing on who to take as a rookie, there is no wrong choice IMO.

With head coaches even more so than quarterbacks, I put a lot of weight on their W/L and SB performances, so it's pretty easy for me to rank our HC's, although one has to consider the fact that the pre-free agency NFL made it almost impossible to build a contender in less than 5 years, so you have to at least put an asterisk by Patera's name.

[Zorn76]

Lynch...and it's not even close.

[obiken]

I would say that the team Knox built was a tougher nut than Holmy. Holmy got a lot of good players and he had a lot of bad projects and reaches. His 2nd rounder's were better than the rest of his draft. Hamlin, Lofta, Boulware, Lucas, ect.
He completely whiffed on the 99 draft, and passing up All world Ed Reed for Hope Solo's hubby, is THE classic blunder.
So I give it to Chucky. IF Chucky could have gotten Moon, he would have won a title.

Sorry Sis you are probably right but I wanted Dillon for SA. Best move the Pats ever made a 3rd rounder for him. Yes SA had a great glide and juke, but IF he could have gotten the tough yards up the middle, sorry we would have been Champs before this. I don't hate the guy, if you are a Viking fan how can you hate Chuck Foreman. However, Lynch had the best up the middle % of any back we ever had.
I loved Warner because he had speed and power. I never saw SA put a team on his back in the playoffs like Beast, but that's just me.
Every coach whiffs on Draft picks but Holmy for the length of his tenure here was the worst.

[Hawktawk]

I would say that the team Knox built was a tougher nut than Holmy. Holmy got a lot of good players and he had a lot of bad projects and reaches. His 2nd rounder's were better than the rest of his draft. Hamlin, Lofta, Boulware, Lucas, ect.
He completely whiffed on the 99 draft, and passing up All world Ed Reed for Hope Solo's hubby, is THE classic blunder.
So I give it to Chucky. IF Chucky could have gotten Moon, he would have won a title.

Sorry Sis you are probably right but I wanted Dillon for SA. Best move the Pats ever made a 3rd rounder for him. Yes SA had a great glide and juke, but IF he could have gotten the tough yards up the middle, sorry we would have been Champs before this. I don't hate the guy, if you are a Viking fan how can you hate Chuck Foreman. However, Lynch had the best up the middle % of any back we ever had.
I loved Warner because he had speed and power. I never saw SA put a team on his back in the playoffs like Beast, but that's just me.
Every coach whiffs on Draft picks but Holmy for the length of his tenure here was the worst.

Obi that's why I put Knox at least even with Holmgren. His teams were tough, resilient. They played the hand they were dealt. Knox was better than Holmgren at adapting to circumstances. When Warner folded up in the 84 opener Ground Chuck handed the ball to Dave Krieg for a 32 TD season and a 12-4 record. IN 2008 Holmgren's receivers started dropping like flies. His QB was injured but he stubbornly tried to run his pure version of the WCO to the tune of a terrible 4-12 lost season. The WCO was a thing of beauty when it was rolling though. We've been fortunate to have all of the big 3 guys who have brought eras of great Hawks football to the 12s over the decades.

[RiverDog]

I would say that the team Knox built was a tougher nut than Holmy. Holmy got a lot of good players and he had a lot of bad projects and reaches. His 2nd rounder's were better than the rest of his draft. Hamlin, Lofta, Boulware, Lucas, ect.
He completely whiffed on the 99 draft, and passing up All world Ed Reed for Hope Solo's hubby, is THE classic blunder.
So I give it to Chucky. IF Chucky could have gotten Moon, he would have won a title.

Sorry Sis you are probably right but I wanted Dillon for SA. Best move the Pats ever made a 3rd rounder for him. Yes SA had a great glide and juke, but IF he could have gotten the tough yards up the middle, sorry we would have been Champs before this. I don't hate the guy, if you are a Viking fan how can you hate Chuck Foreman. However, Lynch had the best up the middle % of any back we ever had.
I loved Warner because he had speed and power. I never saw SA put a team on his back in the playoffs like Beast, but that's just me.
Every coach whiffs on Draft picks but Holmy for the length of his tenure here was the worst.

I agree with Obi. Had Knox been able to land Warren Moon, we would have at least made it to a couple of SB's. Not sure if we would have won any as that was the era that the NFC teams were dominating the contests, teams like the Giants, Redskins, and 49'ers, and I don't know if any of Knox's clubs could have matched up with those guys.

[Hawktawk]

I agree with Obi. Had Knox been able to land Warren Moon, we would have at least made it to a couple of SB's. Not sure if we would have won any as that was the era that the NFC teams were dominating the contests, teams like the Giants, Redskins, and 49'ers, and I don't know if any of Knox's clubs could have matched up with those guys.

Moon would have been interesting, although he is connected to the greatest playoff collapse in history being overtaken by Frank Reich and the Bills . But like Knox always said of Krieg "if you have the other pieces Krieg is good enough to win it all."
I think he was right. Seattle was good enough but you have to be good and lucky too and those teams had no luck whatsoever.

Knox's 1986 team at years end would have beaten anyone and matter of fact beat both the Super Bowl participants that season in a game won by the Giants over Denver. Unfortunately they dropped 5 straight games mid season and missed the tourney at 10-6.KC needed to lose to Pittsburgh and KC won without scoring an offensive TD in a bizarre game that seared in my impression that we would always be jinxed.

Its the story of Knox's life, close but so far away. But those Knox teams were always prepared, fundamentally sound and usually competitive. He has a higher overall win percentage than Holmy and never won less than 7 games in 9 seasons in a damn tough division.
I definitely have a fond memory of that era.

[obiken]

The greatest playoff collapse was due to no running game, Ground Chucky would have had a running game, and with Moon, I think we would have been home.
The agonizing thing was the Hawks wouldn't pay a guaranteed contract to Moony but they did it for the Boz. I never understood that move.

[RiverDog]

The greatest playoff collapse was due to no running game, Ground Chucky would have had a running game, and with Moon, I think we would have been home.
The agonizing thing was the Hawks wouldn't pay a guaranteed contract to Moony but they did it for the Boz. I never understood that move.

I don't think money was an issue when the Hawks were courting Moon. We were owned by the Nordstroms back then, and they weren't cheap like Behring was. From my understanding, the reason Moon went to Houston was that his head coach from Edmonton landed the OC job in Houston, and Moon very wisely followed him. It was a football decision, not one driven by money.

I heard Knox keep saying that Krieg was good enough to win a Super Bowl, but sometimes that's not enough. There are gam es where the QB has to go out and win it on their own and Moon was more likely to be able to do that than Krieg. The ball security difference alone would have been enough to make up the relatively small margin that kept us out of the big game.

[obiken]

I was never a Krieg fan and I never will be. I could be wrong but I thought it was over guaranteed salary River, I try to check it out.

[obiken]

Moon's decision to enter the NFL touched off a bidding war for his services, won by the Houston Oilers (which were coached by Hugh Campbell, his former coach in Edmonton). However, Moon had a difficult adjustment period. Wikipedia.

Your mostly right. They paid 5.5 million a year for him.

[RiverDog]

There was also no guarantee that Moon was going to succeed in the NFL, let alone go on to have a HOF career, although at the time, I was for getting him as I had followed him when he was at UW.

[NorthHawk]

I couldn't believe no NFL team drafted Moon after how well he played in College, and at the time I was a fan of the CFL, so I watched him play for Edmonton whenever they were on TV.
He started behind Tom Wilkinson but soon started sharing playing time, and they were two totally different body types. Wilkinson was a grizzled veteran, frumpy with his jersey half hanging out - think a Billy Kilmer/Sonny Jurgenson type, and Moon was tall and lean with a big arm. I never saw a QB throw a better spiral than Moon. He threw darts when others threw ducks and had a lot of touch on shorter passes.

[obiken]

I couldn't believe no NFL team drafted Moon after how well he played in College, and at the time I was a fan of the CFL, so I watched him play for Edmonton whenever they were on TV.
He started behind Tom Wilkinson but soon started sharing playing time, and they were two totally different body types. Wilkinson was a grizzled veteran, frumpy with his jersey half hanging out - think a Billy Kilmer/Sonny Jurgenson type, and Moon was tall and lean with a big arm. I never saw a QB throw a better spiral than Moon. He threw darts when others threw ducks and had a lot of touch on shorter passes.

That's the racism part of it. What is worse 5 Grey Cups, and only 1 MVP??

[RiverDog]

I couldn't believe no NFL team drafted Moon after how well he played in College, and at the time I was a fan of the CFL, so I watched him play for Edmonton whenever they were on TV.
He started behind Tom Wilkinson but soon started sharing playing time, and they were two totally different body types. Wilkinson was a grizzled veteran, frumpy with his jersey half hanging out - think a Billy Kilmer/Sonny Jurgenson type, and Moon was tall and lean with a big arm. I never saw a QB throw a better spiral than Moon. He threw darts when others threw ducks and had a lot of touch on shorter passes.

Agreed.

I'm not sure what their motivations were, but it's possible that some teams did not want the publicity that would have ensued had they drafted Moon with a high pick as a media circus would have almost certainly followed Moon's every move. The scouts couldn't have been that stupid to think that he didn't have the necessary tools to succeed. That's not an excuse, simply a possible explanation.

But it worked out for him in the long run, so if I'm him, I'm not complaining.

[NorthHawk]

I'm wondering if the lack of pressure allowed him to develop much more so than the immediate success that is and was demanded by the NFL.
I don't think it can be understated to have a veteran in front of you sharing the success and showing you how to be a pro and at the same time get some quality playing time.
A lot of QBs (of all colors) don't get the chance to really develop before they are discounted as a viable option. Moon had 5 years of winning football to establish his confidence and adjust to a level of play above college. There's still a big step to the NFL, but being more mature and experienced must have had some degree of impact on his readiness to enter the higher stage and take on the prejudice he might get in the south at that time.

[RiverDog]

I'm wondering if the lack of pressure allowed him to develop much more so than the immediate success that is and was demanded by the NFL.
I don't think it can be understated to have a veteran in front of you sharing the success and showing you how to be a pro and at the same time get some quality playing time.
A lot of QBs (of all colors) don't get the chance to really develop before they are discounted as a viable option. Moon had 5 years of winning football to establish his confidence and adjust to a level of play above college. There's still a big step to the NFL, but being more mature and experienced must have had some degree of impact on his readiness to enter the higher stage and take on the prejudice he might get in the south at that time.

Good thought. Tim Tebow would fall into that category of a quarterback needing a chance to develop before they're discounted as a viable option, but for different reasons. Moon had good mechanics and a well developed skill set, but there was certainly a lot less psychological pressure playing in Canada rather than in the States. Tebow could probably have handled the pressure but as Chip Kelly said, needed reps that the NFL couldn't provide him with.

Edit: I am not trying to turn this into another Tebow thread, so please.....

[monkey]

Holmgren vs Knox is a much greater debate for me.

To me it's pretty easy.
Pete Carroll has clearly established himself as the Seahawks greatest coach, (there is simply no arguing the point after what he's done here) but after Pete, I would definitely say that Knox was next best. Perhaps he's a little "old school" in his determination to run the ball (Ground Chuck) but what he did WORKED.
Yes Holmgren was the coach that got the team to it's first Super Bowl, and yes he was/is a well respected teacher/coach who had also won a bowl with the Packers, and yes he is considered a West Coast Offense guru, but IMO Knox was a better coach. Holmgren was a system coach, which made him reliant on getting just the right mix of players, ones who fit his system, to have success.
Knox could coach virtually any talent he was given, and make them better, turn them into a real "team". His old school values of toughness and execution, not killing yourself with stupid penalties, and dominate the lines, and T.O.P. by running the ball, work in any era of football, with virtually any decent group of talent.
I've always felt that while Holmgren cast a big shadow ("The Big Show" and all that), Chuck Knox was the better all around coach.

[monkey]

I would say that the team Knox built was a tougher nut than Holmy.

Exactly, while the Knox led teams never got to the big dance, they were consistently a tough team throughout most of the 80's, at a time when the AFC West was an absolutely BRUTAL division, because the Broncos, Chiefs, Raiders and Chargers all had their runs of success.
No matter which team was on the bottom, they could beat the team on top any given Sunday, because the difference in terms of talent was minuscule. There wasn't a team in the West that wasn't tough as nails back then.

While it is impossible to compare era's, I personally believe that several of those Knox led 80's teams would beat the 05 Super Bowl team.
With the exception of that unbelievable offensive line (one of the NFL's best EVER) the 80's teams were MUCH better on defense, and could run the ball even without a star RB, (or with an injured, and never quite the same star RB). I'll take Krieg throwing to Largent, Darryl Turner, Paul Skansi, (and later Brian Blades) over Hasselbeck throwing to Darryl Jackson and Koren Robinson, Bobby Engram easily, (even though Bobby Engram in the slot makes up for those other two drops kings).