View Full Version : Ex-Packers rip Holmgren for SB XXXII
BigPlayShay
02-03-2008, 10:34 PM
http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/nfl
Ex-Packers rip Holmgren for SB XXXII
Posted: Sunday February 03, 2008 08:11AM ET
There was a time, when the Packers were dominating the National Football League in the mid-1990s, general manager Ron Wolf and coach Mike Holmgren were viewed as an ideal combination. They were viewed as a template for organizational success. Now we learn Wolf primarily blames Holmgren for the Packers' loss to the Broncos in Super Bowl XXXII. Wolf said Holmgren was "pig-headed" in failing to adjust to the protection schemes to account for the Broncos' blitzes. In Wolf's view, Holmgren was aware of what needed to be done but didn't do it because he arrogantly believed in his own approach. Former Packers safety LeRoy Butler said Holmgren was more interested in "showing off" than making a simple fix that would have made a difference in the game.
Atwater His Ass
02-03-2008, 10:36 PM
I find that almost impossible to believe. You don't throw Super Bowls down the drain. I beleve 100% that Holmgren used the strategies that he thought gave his team the best chance to win. It's not like we won the game going away.
Wes Mantooth
02-03-2008, 10:40 PM
I find that almost impossible to believe. You don't throw Super Bowls down the drain. I beleve 100% that Holmgren used the strategies that he thought gave his team the best chance to win. It's not like we won the game going away.
why not? his arrogance and hot head lost the sb against the steelers
rugbythug
02-04-2008, 12:06 AM
Blitz Pickups would not have stopped TD
gunns
02-04-2008, 12:10 AM
I thought maybe this was about that "walking, standing up TD" when Holmgren thought it was a 1st down. You're in the SB and don't know what down it is???
Bronco Jamus
02-04-2008, 12:12 AM
It was the right call. We were going to score anyway.
Blitz Pickups would not have stopped TD
Bingo. They couldnt win because they couldnt stop Terrell...and thats even with Terrell missing time with his migraine. Besides, who is to say that Denver wouldnt have made their own adjustments.
Bronco Jamus
02-04-2008, 12:22 AM
Bingo. They couldnt win because they couldnt stop Terrell...and thats even with Terrell missing time with his migraine. Besides, who is to say that Denver wouldnt have made their own adjustments.
I can only wonder what we would have done to that team had TD played the whole game. They probably would have had to take big Gilbert out on a stretcher.
gunns
02-04-2008, 12:24 AM
It was the right call. We were going to score anyway.
Not for the reason it was called.
wabbit
02-04-2008, 01:49 AM
Bingo. They couldnt win because they couldnt stop Terrell...and thats even with Terrell missing time with his migraine...
That's really the long & short of it; adjustments & blitz packages weren't going to stop that Bronco running game.
Hard to understand how these guys can't let it go a decade after the fact.
Sheesh.
Bronco Jamus
02-04-2008, 01:54 AM
That's really the long & short of it; adjustments & blitz packages weren't going to stop that Bronco running game.
Hard to understand how these guys can't let it go a decade after the fact.
Sheesh.
Because they were supposed to whip the Broncos. They believed their own press clippings to. It was supposed to be 14 in-a-row for the NFC anf the team from "Title Town".
chrisp
02-04-2008, 08:47 AM
In some ways that win was one of the biggest superbowl upsets ever, becuase with 13-straight wins everybody thought the NFC just had to turn up to win the superbowl, and with four losses (varying from 'heavy' to 'humiliating') in previous bowls we were one of the key poster-children for AFC inferiority.
I remember all kinds of stuff in the media about how boring the superbowl had become and about how we should restructure the league to end NFC dominance and it all came to a swift end that one Sunday.
Orange_Beard
02-04-2008, 09:50 AM
http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/nfl
Ex-Packers rip Holmgren for SB XXXII
Posted: Sunday February 03, 2008 08:11AM ET
There was a time, when the Packers were dominating the National Football League in the mid-1990s, general manager Ron Wolf and coach Mike Holmgren were viewed as an ideal combination. They were viewed as a template for organizational success. Now we learn Wolf primarily blames Holmgren for the Packers' loss to the Broncos in Super Bowl XXXII. Wolf said Holmgren was "pig-headed" in failing to adjust to the protection schemes to account for the Broncos' blitzes. In Wolf's view, Holmgren was aware of what needed to be done but didn't do it because he arrogantly believed in his own approach. Former Packers safety LeRoy Butler said Holmgren was more interested in "showing off" than making a simple fix that would have made a difference in the game.
This second guessing is such childish horse****. He is the coach, of course he is going to do it his way. "His way" is why you made him the coach.
WolfpackGuy
02-04-2008, 10:12 AM
I don't know why Wolf and Butler would imply that Holmgren was pigheaded. The two big plays off blitzes for Denver came in the first half. If anyone didn't adjust, it was defensive coordinator Fritz Shurmur. He had NO answers for the 3 quarters TD played. If I remember right, I believe the Broncos basically took Butler out of the run game by a simple switch of formations.
Spider
02-04-2008, 10:16 AM
Went through this same **** with Reggie White .........
Merlin
02-04-2008, 11:12 AM
I find that almost impossible to believe. You don't throw Super Bowls down the drain. I beleve 100% that Holmgren used the strategies that he thought gave his team the best chance to win. It's not like we won the game going away.
I guess you never heard of the Rams and Martz era as HC
ro_50
02-04-2008, 11:14 AM
If I remember correctly, that Packers D, while stout against the run, wasn't a great pass rushing team (minus Reggie White).
Merlin
02-04-2008, 11:18 AM
I remember all kinds of stuff in the media about how boring the superbowl had become and about how we should restructure the league to end NFC dominance and it all came to a swift end that one Sunday.
I remember Madden, while cleaning his chin, said Denver could do EVERYTHING right, and still did not have a chance of making close. Too bad he was not in the booth in the SB that yr, it would have been nice to see him cleaning himself while trying to explain how Denver was beating the Pack and his boy.
The media was too enraptured by Favre and cheesheads that they completely neglected to notice that the year before Denver was 13-3. Even though they stubbed their toe after resting players several weeks, they were still 13-3. That year Denver killed the Patriots in Foxboro by 30 points when the Packers beat the Patriots by 14 points on a neutral field. And Denvers running game was even more potent in 1997. Basically, SBXXXII was a game 2 years in the making and the national media failed to recognize this. In 1996 Green Bay defeated the team in the AFC that deserved to be in the SB, but New England wasnt the best team. In 1997, they played that team.
Not only that but Denver wasnt just playing the 97 Packers. They were also playing a host of other negative forces. In addition to playing a very good Packers team they were also playing the ghosts of 1977, 1986, 1987, and 1989. And thats in addition to trying to overcome the NFCs win streak. And the fact that Denver successfully navigated their way past that and dominated the LOS, just goes to show that the Broncos were really better than the Packers. If Denver would have played the Packers 10 times, I wouldnt have been shocked if Denver wins 10 of them because of how they so thoroughly dominated the LOS. Besides, the negative forces that I mentioned would be most prevalent in game 1.
Don Flamenco
02-04-2008, 11:41 AM
The media was too enraptured by Favre and cheesheads that they completely neglected to notice that the year before Denver was 13-3. Even though they stubbed their toe after resting players several weeks, they were still 13-3. That year Denver killed the Patriots in Foxboro by 30 points when the Packers beat the Patriots by 14 points on a neutral field. And Denvers running game was even more potent in 1997. Basically, SBXXXII was a game 2 years in the making and the national media failed to recognize this. In 1996 Green Bay defeated the team in the AFC that deserved to be in the SB, but New England wasnt the best team. In 1997, they played that team.
Not only that but Denver wasnt just playing the 97 Packers. They were also playing a host of other negative forces. In addition to playing a very good Packers team they were also playing the ghosts of 1977, 1986, 1987, and 1989. And thats in addition to trying to overcome the NFCs win streak. And the fact that Denver successfully navigated their way past that and dominated the LOS, just goes to show that the Broncos were really better than the Packers. If Denver would have played the Packers 10 times, I wouldnt have been shocked if Denver wins 10 of them because of how they so thoroughly dominated the LOS. Besides, the negative forces that I mentioned would be most prevalent in game 1.
QFT!
Spider
02-04-2008, 11:59 AM
SB 32 was a game of matchups ...... 2 people on the Pack D had to be dealt with ..... LeRoy Butler And Gilbert Brown , so Shanny lined up Rod Smith and Ed Mac on one side , put Sharpe on the other , this isolated Butler on Sharpe , then Gilbert was only good in a Box , Denvers small Oline riped right through the rest of the packers , The Pack was unable to answer this game plan effectively ....... The Game wouldnt have been that close of Atwater didnt alligator his arms on a sure pick , and the 5 th down the pack got on the opening drive .......
Spider
02-04-2008, 12:00 PM
But if TD couldnt have came back , Denver loses ......
Merlin
02-04-2008, 12:08 PM
But if TD couldnt have came back , Denver loses ......
Yeah, but if Favre gets hurt Denver wins without TD :P
We can all plays this game :wiggle:
Spider
02-04-2008, 12:10 PM
Yeah, but if Favre gets hurt Denver wins without TD :P
We can all plays this game :wiggle:
Only difference is , TD was Hurt .... TD couldnt even see on the td play near the end of the first half
Merlin
02-04-2008, 12:27 PM
Only difference is , TD was Hurt .... TD couldnt even see on the td play near the end of the first half
He wasn't hurt, he had a headache. Suck it up! :D
kidding
Spider
02-04-2008, 12:28 PM
He wasn't hurt, he had a headache. Suck it up! :D
kidding
;D
Rohirrim
02-04-2008, 12:38 PM
I'd ask those ex-Packers, what position on the field did Holmgren play?
Spider
02-04-2008, 12:40 PM
I'd ask those ex-Packers, what position on the field did Holmgren play?
The Walrus was everywhere ... of course ;D
Bronco Bob
02-04-2008, 01:26 PM
why not? his arrogance and hot head lost the sb against the steelers
That and some really bizarre calls by the Refs.
Inkana7
02-04-2008, 01:43 PM
why not? his arrogance and hot head lost the sb against the steelers
By arrogance do you mean bad and questionable reffing?
-Slap-
02-04-2008, 02:02 PM
I knew people would get all defensive about this, but you can hear Bronco coaches on the sideline talking about it during the game. We were committed to keep blitzing until Green Bay took it away. They never took it away.
Hell, lots of people out here like to say the Rebels were trying to shave points against Duke in the NCAA Finals and they let it get too close and blew the game. As a Duke backer, I'm not offended by that. I actually like that version of events better.