Hawktawk wrote: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.
c_hawkbob wrote: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.
obiken wrote: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.
obiken wrote: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.
RiverDog wrote:
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.
obiken wrote: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.
NorthHawk wrote: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.
NorthHawk wrote: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.
NorthHawk wrote: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.
Hawktawk wrote:
Holmgren vs Knox is a much greater debate for me.
obiken wrote:I would say that the team Knox built was a tougher nut than Holmy.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 123 guests