Question: where as this outrage a year ago?

To the Seahawks fans and press who have decided, before it has even been made official, that hiring Pete Carroll is a terrible idea, I want to know: where was this outrage last year when the Seahawks made Jim Mora the head coach?

Well, I suppose we people are bound to be less outraged when they are less surprised, regardless of how bad the decision is. Mora had been anointed heir-apparent a year before Holmgren retired, so that people would be less scared about the prospect of replacing the venerated leader with coach whose track record was far less than confidence inspiring.

One reason I like the NFL is that it is lot more meritocratic than the real world, and the idea of even having an heir-apparent in the first place is a little weird. However, if you have a dynasty you want to maintain, it makes sense.

The Seahawks did not have a dynasty, unfortunately. In fact, they finished 4-12 in Holmgren's last year, the worst finish since 1992. So why was "continuity" desirable in that situation?

Why didn't the Seahawks front office look for and hire the best coach they could find at the end of 2008? Making a commitment to promote a second-year coaching assistant a year in advance was bad business, and makes me feel even better about Tim Ruskell getting canned.

NOTE: I just want to say that the Steve Kelly column I linked to above is pure garbage. It's the level of analysis I would expect from fans who call into talk shows or, well, Steve Kelly.