Evaluating Holmgren vs. Ruskell In Draft

the soccer stadium with the bright lights

I have been accused of being bitter. I know, I know, it’s hard to believe. People who know me, know that I am one of the most positive people around who always sees the glass as half full.

Okay, that’s total BS. I moan as much as anyone. Seeing as I bitch the most about people that take one point of view blindly, I figured it was only right that I try to look past my growing anti-Ruskell bias and look at the last few drafts to see if I’m overstating things.

I took a very unscientific approach here. Embedded is a spreadsheet of all the Seahawks draft picks since 2000. Ruskell’s first draft was in 2005. I am going to consider all previous draft picks those of Mike Holmgren since I don’t believe that fat guy before Ruskell was anything but a donut boy.

I graded each draft pick based on their contribution to the team. I did not give higher grades for good value. In other words, I graded solely on the player’s contributions to the Seahawks instead of a relative scale based on where they were picked. The scale I used was sorta like this:

A – Starter who made a significant contribution
B – Player who may be a mediocre starter or regularly contributing reserve
C – Reserve
D – Bad reserve
F – Totally useless

I then gave a gut feel overall grade for each draft.

Ruskell’s grades were:
2005 – A
2006 – B
2007 – C

Holmgren’s grades were:
2000 – B
2001 – A
2002 – D
2003 – A
2004 – A

In 4 of 5 Holmgren drafts, at least two players became significant starters for the team. The same could be said for 2 of 3 Ruskell drafts. Holmgren draft 5 players that have made the Pro Bowl. Ruskell has drafted…1.

Take a look for yourself, and if you would like access to the spreadsheet to add your own grades, drop me a comment and I can add you as an author.

More Stories
How will Shane Waldron’s influence change the Seahawks Offense?