Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fork
Bob Whitsitt isn't/wasn't a football guy. (Even you admit that in your post.)
|
That's true. But he deserves credit and blame for what happened when he was in charge. He deserves credit and blame for players that are either gone (Koren Robinson) or still there (the entire offense).
I'm not claiming that Whitsitt would have been able to keep the team together, or make it better, or that he would have led the team to the Super Bowl. But he deserves a lot more credit than almost everyone on this board is giving him for building this team.
Quote:
|
Giving him credit for drafting Shaun Alexander is absolutely absurd. He had nothing to do with that decision. Scouts told him who they needed and he gave the thumbs up. A monkey could do that.
|
So what does that make Steve Nash?
*duck*
Again: he deserves credit for acquiring good players, and blame for bad ones. Picking and choosing and qualifying things in the extreme might make some sense, but I don't think that it makes sense to single one player out and say that Whitsitt doesn't deserve credit because he "only" was in charge.
Quote:
|
Bob didn't take over 'real GM' duties until 2003...Alexander was drafted in 2000. Bob brought in Holmgren, true...but are you forgetting that Holmgren would have left if Whitsitt hadn't been fired? Holmgren hated Bob's idiotic behavior.
|
Holmgren and Alexander also had big-time problems. Maybe Holmgren relaxed a little bit this year, and it wasn't all Whitsitt's fault.
Independent of that, though, unless I'm claiming that Whitsitt deserves ALL of the credit for building this team (which I certainly do not) that Mike Holmgren might have left, or that Hasselbeck might have left, or that Alexander or Jones might have left is just speculative and doesn't undermine the credit that Whitsitt deserves for building a successful team in the past few years and a team that was able to take the big step in a much easier division this year.
Quote:
I give credit where it's due...Seattle may have moved if it wasn't for Bob. They may not have gotten a new stadium either. (Not that either of those things matters in terms of wins and losses.)
But Bob was only good at building contenders, not winners.
|
I understand what you're saying, but I reject it. "Winners" are defined by what happens on the court or field, and sometimes luck plays a BIG part. I really wonder if people think that the fourth quarter collapse against the Lakers indicated a truly different team than one that could have held on (and probably kicked the crap out of Indiana). Distinguishing a team by a single quarter--by drawing a line between "winners" and "contenders" is either drawing too fine of a distinction (as with the 2000 Blazers) for me or too simplistic (by just looking at the champions and ignoring the rest).
Whitsitt put his teams in a position to win, and to win big, almost every year. That they often failed to win big is not surprising... it's freaking HARD TO DO. The Seahawks put it together this year without Whitsitt, but from the home field advantage loss to the Rams last year to the OT loss in GB a couple years ago: those were some good Seahawks teams, and ignoring their successes (not saying you are, Fork) is just piling on a guy now that the team is successful (of course, if the team would have collapsed this year, people would have piled on him, too).
Ed O.
OT: One Of The More Ironic Quotes I've Seen In A Long, Long Time...
Linear Mode
