Mike Holmgren Not The Best Choice For San Francisco 49ers Front Office
With the news from Mike Maske at the Washington Post.com that Mike Holmgren is getting the itch to return to football, thanks to Samuel Lam for the link, many 49ers fans are already putting Holmgren in the wish list for a spot in the 49ers front office.
Holmgren was the head coach of the Packers from 1992-1998. He had a very impressive record of 84-42 with two Super Bowl appearances and one SB victory.
He moved to Seattle in 1999 and became the highest paid coach in the NFL, at the time. He also took over duties as General Manager.
But the Seahawks were marginal under Holmgren's watch as GM. He stepped down as GM after the 2003-04 season. He cited not having time as the main reason.
But the Hawks performed poorly under his reign as GM.
Here are the team's records with Holmgren as GM:
That's 41-39 record, give or take, I majored in English.
That's hardly an impressive record for a GM. Those were his personnel in the 2001-04 seasons. But the record was not impressive. The Hawks had one playoff appearance in this span as well.
Seattle did go 13-3 and make a trip to the Super Bowl the year after he stepped down, in the 2005 season, but the were 22-25 in the three years since.
If you think the 2005 season was an indication of anything, look at the fact that Holmgren only had three seasons with double-digit win totals.
He had 13 in 2005, 10 in 2003 and 10 in 2007.
Many 49ers fans have voiced their opinions before and after Singletary was hired that Holmgren would make a great GM.
But when you look at the records of his years in Seattle as GM and even afterward, there are a lot of questions. He may be a great GM, but his record in that capacity is spotty at best and bad at worst.
It's granted that San Francisco's record over the last seven years is not better than Holmgren's, but if the Yorks want to add someone to the front office, they may want to look at someone with a better record as a personnel manager.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?