Should Matt be traded/released or moved to back up?

A collection of NET's best and most memorable threads. Predictions, debates, laughs, and X's & O's. Rating: PG to NC-17
  • Tech Worlds wrote:Anyone ever see a dog chase it's tail?


    Not here, mine spends most of his time licking his balls!
    seedhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2511
    Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:51 am


  • MysterMatt wrote:Gahhhhhh!!! My eyes!!!!




    It must be an eye thing Matt because I feel the same way. I keep thinking that maybe someone will suggest waiting and seeing what happens in training camp but doubtful.

    I think people get real and fantasy football mixed up and imagine they can talk something into being when it isn't.

    :141847_bnono:
    Image
    So close to the real thing.
    User avatar
    The Radish
    * NET Radish *
     
    Posts: 18540
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:18 pm
    Location: Spokane, Wa.


  • The Radish wrote:
    MysterMatt wrote:Gahhhhhh!!! My eyes!!!!




    It must be an eye thing Matt because I feel the same way. I keep thinking that maybe someone will suggest waiting and seeing what happens in training camp but doubtful.

    I think people get real and fantasy football mixed up and imagine they can talk something into being when it isn't.

    :141847_bnono:



    Based on this logic we might as well just shut this site down, is a discussion, no one thinks we can change anything but what is the point of a message board if you can't even discuss stuff?
    MARTYREDwarner
     


  • PC's whole system is competition at every position including QB, that's why DW was brought in....So- seeing as how we still have to go thru all the work outs, training camp and then the pre-season, it is impossible to say who will win the job.Give PC time- He'll figure it out. I'm in.

    :0190l:
    User avatar
    TVHAWK
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 111
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:20 pm


  • the whole problem with this QB situation is that "the guy" isn't on the roster yet. he won't be this season. i think its safe to say this is a lost season. now we wasted a yr where we could've developed our future QB. neither CW or matt is our future QB whether you like it or don't. we lost our chance to possible get that guy when we passed on sanchez and clausen. its too late now, so where do we go from here? we have no other choice but to draft a 1st round QB, then use 2-3yrs to develop them, meaning we aren't winning til that happens. its the ugly truth. expect 4yrs of losing. i'd rather that than being mediocre for the next 10. they dragged their feet on drafting a franchise QB, now we'll pay the price. as much as i love what PC/JS has done overall so far, the CW trade and following up that mistake without drafting a QB will set us back for yrs. it probably will spell doom for them and they wont be around to see the whole rebuild take shape unless this owner is ok with losing for the next 4yrs. if any of you believe different, i respect your optimism but i don't believe its reality the way the nfl is now. for all the matt believers, its over. he might be servicable but we'll never get back to SB contention again with him, so we have to part ways.
    ctbullets
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 18
    Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:18 pm


  • warner28 wrote:
    JohnnyB wrote:
    I buy the 'competition' thing. Just don't get why Hasselbeck is part of it. A Clausen/Whitehurst competition would have made tons of sense, a Hasselbeck/Clausen battle makes some sense since rookie QBs should sit. Hasselbeck/Whitehurst makes none IMO.


    That's because you weren't paying attention when a 38 year old Warner played more than well enough for his team to win a Superbowl. And maybe you weren't around when the scores of other QBs have done the same over the years in the NFL. Hasselbeck won't be 38 for three more years.


    Scores of other QBs?

    Okay.


    If you believe Matt Hasselbeck will play anywhere near the level of an age 37 Warner (he was 37 not 38 when he took them to the Super Bowl), fine. But Matt has NEVER had that kind of season, even in his prime. Hasselbeck's best season (either 2005 or 2007 depending on how you look at it) does not even compare to what Warner did in 2008. Also if he played "more than well enough for them to win the Super Bowl" where is the trophy? He played good enough to put them in position to win, maybe he was good enough but the team around him was not and now they will most likely take a step back while finding the next guy good enough.

    Seattle is unlikely to have enough talent to win a Super Bowl (even if Matt played like Warner circa 2008) before he is done playing that good so what is the point?

    And if Matt is the long term plan, where is the contract extension?


    I am pretty sick of the "look at Kurt Warner" line of reasoning, Warner was significantly better throughout his career and outside of a 6 game stretch at age 31 never played as poorly has Matt has over the last 2 years.

    If Matt is the guy, give him a damn extension, why wait?


    Has Matt had Torry Holt and Larry Fitzgerald type of receiver to work with? How was Warner doing when he wasn't playing with those receivers? Yeah, he was performing quite a bit lower than Matt. Where were the Cards in 2005-2007? At the bottom of the division.

    What makes Warner a HOF QB? IMO, he's not and I hope he doesn't get in. Joe Montana won a Super Bowl without Jerry Rice. Joe Montana willed his team to win. Warner couldn't even take his team to a .500 winning percentage without a Torry Holt or Larry Fitzgerald. That's why Warner isn't a HOF material.
    User avatar
    hawkfan68
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 3519
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


Previous


It is currently Sat Aug 30, 2014 4:31 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE ARCHIVES ]




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests