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
  • Snohomie wrote:
    Mckinja wrote:
    SC27 wrote:IMO, Matt should start the season, but if they don't stay within a game or two of the division lead by game 10, then Matt should be pulled for Whitehurst regardless of how well he's playing. That gives CW a 6 game tryout to see if he's the man for 2011. Once there's no chance to win the division and make the playoffs, I don't see any reason Hass should continue playing.


    Isn't training camp and preseason considered a try out? If Whitehurst can't beat out Matt in TC and PS, would he actually deserve getting the nod as a starter because our TEAM can't win enough to stay in the hunt? Makes no sense.


    I don't think SC27's comment was meant to say "Matt will be a bad QB if he doesn't win", but that if we're not a competitive team, we gain very little by playing a 34 year old QB on the last year of his contract.

    Whether or not you like the Whitehurst deal, we invested a fair bit in him. Both in money and draft picks. Next offseason, we're going to be deciding whether we need to draft our QB of the future or if Whitehurst is the guy. I'd feel much better if we made that evaluation off of games than if we decided it based on TC or PS.


    I get what you're saying, Kyle. But I would ask you this: Pretend you're a Seahawk. If Matt gets pulled mid way through the season (presuming he's performing adequately) for no other reason than the team is out of contention and the coaches want to give Charlie a tryout, what does that do to the whole notion of "the best player at each position will start"? In my mind it would undercut that philosophy.

    We did give up quite a bit for Chuck. The coaching staff must see something in him, otherwise they wouldn't have brought him in for the price we paid. If Matt isn't brought back next year, Whitehurst will have the whole year to prove himself as a legitimate NFL QB or confirm his previous position on the SD depth chart. Regardless, I think next offseason, we'll be getting a QB whether CW is the guy or not.
    Image
    User avatar
    Mckinja
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 2797
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:31 am
    Location: Auburn, WA


  • He went to the pro bowl in 2007. So that was three years ago. In 2008, he missed 3/4 of the season because of a bad back. Hard to consider his play awful that year because he didn't play much. Last year, yes, he had an awful year. He also had a subpar (injury riddled) year in 2006 but bounced back in 2007 to have his best year of his career (numbers wise). The age is always an issue (can't turn back the clock). What can change and possibly help him is to devise a scheme that allows him to play to his strength and build the team around him. He hasn't had a consistent run game since 2005. Last year, it took a long time to establish a running game, by then the season was all but over. Even with Forsett or Jones, neither of those guys scared defenses like SA did in his prime or even Ricky Watters before him. The OL with no run attack has added pressure to Matt. Matt does an excellent job at managing the game, reading defenses, and accurate short-mid range passes. He get's in trouble when he feels he needs to take the team on his shoulders and then starts to force the action. That's what happened last year. The coaches, scheme (lack thereof), may have factored into a lot of what went wrong last year. Hopefully, he can turn it around. If not, Whitehurst, Teel, Reilly or someone else will take over. NFL is also an acronym for "Not For Long". SA experienced it and if Matt doesn't improve, he will too. With that said, I like Matt and in the right scheme with right players around him can do well. He's intelligent but one has to create plays and offense that use his strengths. The coaches couldn't do that last year. Maybe Bates/PC can. We'll see.
    User avatar
    hawkfan68
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 3508
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • I'd trade Hasselbeck if there were an offer on the table, and I think it's better for our long-term future if Whitehurst starts (even if it results in a few less wins this season), but at the very least, there needs to be an open and honest QB battle. I don't like that it seems to be a "Hasselbeck's job to lose" situation. Forget what they've done in the past; whoever shows in camp/preseason that they can run the offense more effectively starts the year.
    User avatar
    Rat
    * NET Cynic *
     
    Posts: 3512
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:42 pm
    Location: St. Louis, MO


  • lostlobos wrote:
    No one will ever convince me that under anything near normal circumstances, Matt would have a super bowl ring to accompany his MVP trophy.
    .


    So you think Matt Hasselbeck has MVP type ability? I just want to make sure i read that correctly.

    He has had some good seasons, been our best QB ever. But i wouldnt go so far as to say that he is MVP quality.

    Not by a long shot.
    Image
    User avatar
    Tech Worlds
    * Capt'n Dom *
    * Capt'n Dom *
     
    Posts: 9260
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
    Location: Granite Falls, WA


  • Matt's the leader of this franchise and is the glue that will hold things together on offense as all the pieces come together, that alone is enough to have him inserted as the starter for a team that will have a learning curve. As far as injurys go when you have a seive for a line I don't care who is back there they will get beat up, Matts toughness in itself going thru that is an example of competitiveness and never say die menatality, something the rest of the team will follow by example and take on as the identity of the team.

    He's not old really, a lot of QB's if they stay in the system are very good thru their mid 30's. Farve, Gannon, Warner, Plunkett, Jourgenson, are just a few examples, Doug Williams also that played at a high level. Matts asked to manage the games and make smart decisions, he gets in trouble when he tries to put the team on his back and do more. Thats just his desire to win and try to compensate for others.

    Whitehurst being a direct line to mentor and learn from Matt will only benefit, he will get reps, he will be the QB in waiting presumably. He will have time to learn the system, earn the respect of the team and learn to lead. This will help him greatly if Matt goes down, or is not brought back next year.

    Only thing I see possible at this point is Minnesota making a trade for him if Farve does not come back, and they will pay for him. Why because he's a winner, knows the system, is not goint to be a one year wonder and a problem, and with that team can get them where they want to go.

    Farve has not cleaned out his locker in Minnesota yet so thats a reach, but if there was anyplace Matt would end up this late that would be it.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Used to be an Alumni till they pulled a USC on me...
    .Net official Clueless, Dumbass, Douche, Simpleton, CensoredTard , Idiot, member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 10081
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • Pete Carroll said from the beginning - you get your QB and you build around him. So far, this appears to be happening. Improved O-line, improved running game, and more options at receiver. PC is putting Hass in a position to succeed. Ruskell and company obviously didn't do that.

    SO, with the improved O-line, better run support, more options at receiver, AND competition from CW, Matt is poised for a comeback year. He's going to battle, and he's not going to go away quietly. If he loses the job, then clearly, CW is our best bet at QB.

    But given the current circumstances, I don't think he'll lose this battle. We've seen the spazzlebeck when he's hurt or has no protection, but we've also seen the Hasslebeck-led, 4th-quarter, 2-minute offense comeback for the win.
    User avatar
    hoxrox
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1204
    Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:29 pm


  • Mckinja wrote:
    Snohomie wrote:I don't think SC27's comment was meant to say "Matt will be a bad QB if he doesn't win", but that if we're not a competitive team, we gain very little by playing a 34 year old QB on the last year of his contract.

    Whether or not you like the Whitehurst deal, we invested a fair bit in him. Both in money and draft picks. Next offseason, we're going to be deciding whether we need to draft our QB of the future or if Whitehurst is the guy. I'd feel much better if we made that evaluation off of games than if we decided it based on TC or PS.


    I get what you're saying, Kyle. But I would ask you this: Pretend you're a Seahawk. If Matt gets pulled mid way through the season (presuming he's performing adequately) for no other reason than the team is out of contention and the coaches want to give Charlie a tryout, what does that do to the whole notion of "the best player at each position will start"? In my mind it would undercut that philosophy.

    We did give up quite a bit for Chuck. The coaching staff must see something in him, otherwise they wouldn't have brought him in for the price we paid. If Matt isn't brought back next year, Whitehurst will have the whole year to prove himself as a legitimate NFL QB or confirm his previous position on the SD depth chart. Regardless, I think next offseason, we'll be getting a QB whether CW is the guy or not.


    If the season is lost, that philosophy isn't doing us any good anyways. Tell everyone that they are competing for their jobs next year and go with youth. Tell the players you want to mix it up to see if different combination of players will win more games (my favorite, it shows that the coaching staff isn't just keeping the status quo, they're trying new things to win). Hell, shelve Matt with an injury (cause you know by the halfway mark something or another will be bothering him) and use that as your excuse. Any of those work. Let's be honest - coaches make plenty of mistakes evaluating players - Chuck Darby vs Mebane, JJ vs Forsett (JJ vs anyone?), Kelly Herndon vs Kelly Jennings, etc. (Yes, they're not this coaching staff, but we see backups outperforming the initial starters all the time on lots of teams) Letting a young guy play may not even make the team worse, it could prove beneficial.

    I'd rather give myself an improved chance of making the playoffs in 2011 than possibly an improved chance of winning meaningless games (and I don't buy momentum, I haven't heard one person here talk about how we have to fight the negative momentum of last year, why should positive momentum exist but not negative? Besides, every player says "it's 0-0 right now" when it's time to start the season) in 2010.

    Waiting until after 2011 to make a decision on a QB would be a big mistake. Matt will almost assuredly be gone and Whitehurst's contract will be up. Whoever we bring in will be under a ton of pressure to start right away, and likely it'd be a rookie QB. QBs who start as rookies tend to fail at a higher rate than those who spend a year or two learning things, and the ones who succeed usually do so with a great running attack (Pitt with Big Ben, Baltimore with Flacco, Atlanta with Ryan). Even with a great running attack, I still believe it'd be smarter to pick your QB in 2010 and let him learn the ropes - because a rookie QB with a great running attack might make the playoffs by protecting the QB, but if the QB is capable of helping the offense (as opposed to not screwing the offense) it could really improve the team.

    Taking a QB in 2010 without seeing Whitehurst in a game would be almost as big an error. While it may not screw things up like starting a rookie QB, it would be a poor use of resources. I'd much rather have a realistic idea of what Whitehurst brings to the table than go into the draft blind. Maybe Whitehurst is actually a darn good QB, and you just took a QB in the first round because you let Matt go 16 (well, that's unlikely... 13?) games. You can't go just off practice either, IMO. Some guys practice at a different level than they play, not due to effort or anything but practice does not simulate an actual game.
    Sarlacc, on comparing .NET to Soccer: And why not? It's a bunch of people running around in circles, feigning pain, and never scoring.
    Snohomie
    * NET Draft Guru *
     
    Posts: 3591
    Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:06 pm
    Location: Bellingham, WA


  • Tech Worlds wrote:
    lostlobos wrote:
    No one will ever convince me that under anything near normal circumstances, Matt would have a super bowl ring to accompany his MVP trophy.
    .


    So you think Matt Hasselbeck has MVP type ability? I just want to make sure i read that correctly.

    He has had some good seasons, been our best QB ever. But i wouldnt go so far as to say that he is MVP quality.

    Not by a long shot.



    My comment was refering to SBXL and had the Seahawks been allowed to play (thus the anything near normal circumstances) we would have won and Matt would have definatley been the super bowl MVP.

    I will say, if Matt comes in healthy and a few things go right, like Mike Williams provides a Jurevicous type reciever and Tate/Housh,Branch and Butler perform well and not only run the right routes, but finish them, along with better pass protection and a decent running game, If Matt perfrormed at the level he did in 05 or 06, I wouldn't be suprised.

    It may sound like alot, but IMO, it should be expected including the defense playing well enough to keep average teams from running the score up on us.

    Matt has proven he can perform with a half way decent WR core and an average level defense, he did it in 06 when Holmgren announced to the NFL, we're gonna throw the ball, and throw the ball we did. That year was also a year with a below average running game (thus the, we're gonna throw the ball) and no above average recievers.

    The only question is, how much does he still have? 34 is not ancient for a QB and many QB's have made stellar comebacks past that age.
    Quoting Montanahawk05:
    the foremost reason, by a long margin, of Seattle's continued struggles the last three years is Matt Hasselbeck. Hass's arm strength has declined to the vanishing point. [b]They're stacking the line and jumping routes because they don't respect Hasselbeck's arm.
    User avatar
    lostlobos
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1691
    Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 2:46 pm


  • Snohomie wrote:Taking a QB in 2010 without seeing Whitehurst in a game would be almost as big an error. While it may not screw things up like starting a rookie QB, it would be a poor use of resources. I'd much rather have a realistic idea of what Whitehurst brings to the table than go into the draft blind. Maybe Whitehurst is actually a darn good QB, and you just took a QB in the first round because you let Matt go 16 (well, that's unlikely... 13?) games. You can't go just off practice either, IMO. Some guys practice at a different level than they play, not due to effort or anything but practice does not simulate an actual game.


    I have a feeling we'll see Whitehurst in "real" action this coming season whether it be him beating out Matt for the #1 job, Matt getting injured, garbage time, etc. Regardless of whether Whitehurst turns out to be nothing, a hidden super star, or something in between; IMO we need another QB, especially if Matt is not re-signed.
    Image
    User avatar
    Mckinja
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 2797
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:31 am
    Location: Auburn, WA


  • Man, you guys are crazy!

    Matt is only two seasons removed from a Pro Bowl season (his third). One of those seasons he was injured for most of the season (like everyone else on the offence that year) and the other he was stuck in a stupid system run by that moron Greg Knapp. Last year he tried (and failed) to put the team on his back because everyone and everything else about that offence was awful.

    Give him a decent system, decent targets, a running game to draw attention away from him, keep him upright and Matt will LIGHT IT UP. So long as he isn't thrust into a position where he feels he has to play "gunslinger" to make something happen, Matt is a great QB. I predict he wins the comeback player of the year, or is at least part of the conversation.

    CW was brought in to be a capable back up (ie: not Seneca) and a fire under Matt's ass.
    So you're admitting I'm a celeb...
    User avatar
    CANHawk
    * Gangnameister *
     
    Posts: 11230
    Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:29 pm
    Location: PoCompton, BC Canada


  • For the past two offseasons we have heard that Matt (if healthy) will light it up and win the comeback player of the year award. Even if we assume that he is 100% healthy, he still can't make all the throws. He had trouble with some of the deeper outs and flies with Holmgren here and he will have even more trouble in Bates' system. It hurst to say it because I'm a huge MH fan, but even if Matt is 100% healthy, he still isn't good enough for this system, imo.
    MeenReen
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 509
    Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 7:46 am


  • MeenReen wrote:For the past two offseasons we have heard that Matt (if healthy) will light it up and win the comeback player of the year award. Even if we assume that he is 100% healthy, he still can't make all the throws. He had trouble with some of the deeper outs and flies with Holmgren here and he will have even more trouble in Bates' system. It hurst to say it because I'm a huge MH fan, but even if Matt is 100% healthy, he still isn't good enough for this system, imo.



    Hmm so did a guy named Montana, or Dave Kreig, or Bob Greise, Matt can throw the ball adequetly down field, I mean you could have Joe Gilliam, J Russell, Ryan Leaf and others if ya just want to chuck it down field but then you have to worry about game management, and making the right decisions.

    Besides most of the games receivers make their yards on RAC. Home run balls happen but you can't base an offense on them specifically.

    I'll take Matt thank you very much.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Used to be an Alumni till they pulled a USC on me...
    .Net official Clueless, Dumbass, Douche, Simpleton, CensoredTard , Idiot, member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 10081
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • hoxrox wrote:Pete Carroll said from the beginning - you get your QB and you build around him.

    This is the best reason I've seen so far for getting rid of Hasselbeck. Why would you build around a QB who is only going to be here for one year at most?

    It really is too bad we can't get anything for him in trade. With the way our FO handled the draft, we may have plucked another starter if we could have got a 4th round pick for him.

    I say we just make him the #2 man and let him play out his contract. No need to release him, as I'm not sold on Teel as a primary backup.

    We need to see what we have in Charlie. We really haven't given up much to get him...if he ends up a capable #2 we've paid about right, if he ends up starter quality, we've stolen him. But we really need to find out if we have to draft Mallet or Luck next year.
    seattlesetters
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 564
    Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 3:45 pm


  • seattlesetters wrote:
    We need to see what we have in Charlie. We really haven't given up much to get him... if he ends up a capable #2 we've paid about right, if he ends up starter quality, we've stolen him. But we really need to find out if we have to draft Mallet or Luck next year.


    :shock:

    I'm pretty sure the equivalent of a 3rd and a 4th is pretty steep for adequate backup. I mean, we gave up Seneca (who can't possibly be considered less than a capable #2) for, what, a 2011 7th? 2011 6th?
    Sarlacc, on comparing .NET to Soccer: And why not? It's a bunch of people running around in circles, feigning pain, and never scoring.
    Snohomie
    * NET Draft Guru *
     
    Posts: 3591
    Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:06 pm
    Location: Bellingham, WA


  • Snohomie wrote:I don't buy momentum


    Me neither. At least not on a team level, especially with the overhaul of a typical offseason. Individual momentum? Sure, in some cases. But that just lends itself even more to giving Whitehurst meaningful reps this year instead of having him carry a clipboard in favor of an on-the-outs 35 year old (in Sept.) QB.

    Snohomie wrote:I'm pretty sure the equivalent of a 3rd and a 4th is pretty steep for adequate backup. I mean, we gave up Seneca (who can't possibly be considered less than a capable #2) for, what, a 2011 7th? 2011 6th?


    Not to mention the Raiders acquired a superior prospect in Jason Campbell for a 2012 conditional 4th rounder that they will only have to pay if Campbell leads his team to the playoffs or makes a pro-bowl.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 10656
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


  • On topic:

    I think the chance to trade Hass has come and gone. Holmgren offered the Hawks one of his 3rd rounders, but Seattle turned it down. Since then, he's added 3 QBs, including Jake Delhomme who is basically Hasselbeck-lite and on a similar contract. Not a lot of other teams could make use of Hasselbeck, who would need a great OL and a precision offense. The only other reasonably possible suitor is Minnesota if Favre actually retires and leaves the Vikings holding the bag (don't count on it).

    Hass will remain a Seahawk and the way things are going, he will start as long as he is physically able to. Seattle has an outside shot at winning the division so this isn't a completely idiotic idea, but I'd rather start Whitehurst, even if it means blowing a chance for an 8-8 playoff berth. Without getting into the draft implications (which would be significant) of such a scenario, I just think that for the sake of not wasting a big investment, Seattle needs to get Whitehurst some real reps. I can easily imagine a scenario where Seattle passes on Ryan Mallett or Jake Locker next year because they still want to see more from Whitehurst, and they have a DE/WR that they rate as highly. That would be a fatal mistake.

    As such, starting Hasselbeck this year could lead to a domino effect that damages the team long term at the QB position, (especially if he plays well enough to get an extension). We can look back and see how trading a future 3rd last year for Butler may very well have cost the team the ability to draft Clausen at #40 (since not having that 3rd this year complicated the CW deal).

    I've accepted that Hass will be the starter, but if I was running this team, he wouldn't be. Of course, I'll root for him like I always do, but I will root harder for Whitehurst this preseason.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 10656
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


  • Kearly,

    Where does that 3rd round offer come from? Heard it a few times but never seen a source. Hard for me to believe it. If true and they turned it down, I want both fired immediately.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


  • I think that Pete Carroll and John Schneider should be fired and Matt should take over as GM/Head Coach. John Schneider could be the team mascot and Pete Carroll can join the cheerleaders.

    Woooo!! Go Seahawks!
    "God Bless the Seattle Seahawks" Cortez Kennedy
    User avatar
    ivotuk
    * NET Nobody *
     
    Posts: 8050
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:29 pm


  • Snohomie wrote:
    seattlesetters wrote:
    We need to see what we have in Charlie. We really haven't given up much to get him... if he ends up a capable #2 we've paid about right, if he ends up starter quality, we've stolen him. But we really need to find out if we have to draft Mallet or Luck next year.


    :shock:

    I'm pretty sure the equivalent of a 3rd and a 4th is pretty steep for adequate backup. I mean, we gave up Seneca (who can't possibly be considered less than a capable #2) for, what, a 2011 7th? 2011 6th?

    I think you are wrong there. Obviously some people do consider Seneca to be less than a capable #2 QB. Probably most of the league.
    49ers webzone: Win or lose, i hope you injure Sherman. Like a serious career ending injury. I don't want him to get paid.
    49ers webzone: noise should not be the overwhelming reason a team is favored. they need to spray noise-damping foam onto the ceiling of that place.
    User avatar
    BlueTalon
    * NET Curmudgeon *
    * NET Curmudgeon *
     
    Posts: 7377
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:06 am
    Location: Eastern Washington


  • BlueTalon wrote:
    Snohomie wrote:
    seattlesetters wrote:
    We need to see what we have in Charlie. We really haven't given up much to get him... if he ends up a capable #2 we've paid about right, if he ends up starter quality, we've stolen him. But we really need to find out if we have to draft Mallet or Luck next year.


    :shock:

    I'm pretty sure the equivalent of a 3rd and a 4th is pretty steep for adequate backup. I mean, we gave up Seneca (who can't possibly be considered less than a capable #2) for, what, a 2011 7th? 2011 6th?

    I think you are wrong there. Obviously some people do consider Seneca to be less than a capable #2 QB. Probably most of the league.


    Or, the price of a #2 is pretty darn low... That was my intent in bringing up Seneca...
    Sarlacc, on comparing .NET to Soccer: And why not? It's a bunch of people running around in circles, feigning pain, and never scoring.
    Snohomie
    * NET Draft Guru *
     
    Posts: 3591
    Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:06 pm
    Location: Bellingham, WA


  • I think Hass will win the QB competition and be the starter. However, Whitehurst should be able to get enough playing time as a non starter to allow PC et. al. to "see what he's got". As I recall in years past there have even been a few situations where 2 QB's pretty much shared the QB duties. That may not be a bad option this year because it would allow "old Man" Hass to get some rest and perhaps extend his career (and have less injuries)while at the same time allowing Whithurst the opportunity for some "on the job training". Also, I assume we'll have some "blow out" games (both ways) this year and PC can let the young dude run the show to reduce Hass's work load.
    <--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--> GO SEAHAWKS <--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><-->
    User avatar
    CamanoIslandJQ
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 907
    Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:11 am
    Location: Camano Island, WA


  • kearly wrote:As such, starting Hasselbeck this year could lead to a domino effect that damages the team long term at the QB position, (especially if he plays well enough to get an extension). We can look back and see how trading a future 3rd last year for Butler may very well have cost the team the ability to draft Clausen at #40 (since not having that 3rd this year complicated the CW deal).

    Have you not paid any attention to the Panthers team thinking Clausen is full of him self, and Steve Smith basically saying Clausen is a punk. I would have watched him in Seattle ruin our organization.

    Hasselbeck has gotten way to little credit, everyone complains about the WR and OL situations as glaring holes. Tell me if Peyton Manning couldn't get 3 seconds in the pocket and even if he did his WR screwed up half the time, would he would put up good numbers in the league? I thought so. Matt has been an average QB with little help. Imagine what he can do with good help.

    Hasselbeck waited 2 years behind a future HOF in Brett Favre. Whitehurst has sat three years behind Phillip Rivers one of the leagues premier QBs. I am confident in his ability to play, an become a leader. Saying that though, Matt is already a leader and has played average football with little help, with the help he will receive this year, i am even confident in his ability to be a top 10 QB this year. Im calling it right now, He will get a 2 year deal after this year.

    I think anyone who thinks we are gunna take Locker or a QB period in the top half of the draft(rounds 1-3) is crazy! If it is Matt's last year than ofcourse we will aim for a second or third stringer.

    Im way more interested on if Mike Teel or Mike Reilly gets cut, or if they both stay. If they both remain i guarantee no QB will be taken next year.
    Image
    User avatar
    Logical Seahawk
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 108
    Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 4:56 am
    Location: Los Angeles, CA


  • Logical Seahawk wrote:
    kearly wrote:As such, starting Hasselbeck this year could lead to a domino effect that damages the team long term at the QB position, (especially if he plays well enough to get an extension). We can look back and see how trading a future 3rd last year for Butler may very well have cost the team the ability to draft Clausen at #40 (since not having that 3rd this year complicated the CW deal).

    Have you not paid any attention to the Panthers team thinking Clausen is full of him self, and Steve Smith basically saying Clausen is a punk. I would have watched him in Seattle ruin our organization.


    Have you paid any attention? That rumor was bogus from day 1. You could smell it a mile away with the "we're told" as its source. Anyone who believes what they read on PFT, and bleacher report for that matter as truth is gulible. And when that douche Florio who started that rumor was expected to go on the air with Steve Smith he tucked his slimey little tail and ran like a bitch yesterday. This hate on Jimmy Clausen and love fest for Tim Tebow is a joke. Here's a link to Steve Smiths actual opinion.

    http://wfnz.cbslocal.com/2010/05/07/ste ... #more-3446
    Hawks are 4-0 when Lynch gets atleast 20 touches.

    Scottemojo wrote:As for the rest of your post, well...you convinced me. You know more than everyone else. I bow to your superior knowledge
    User avatar
    Unsilent_Majority
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1121
    Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:52 am


  • ah ha cats still hate Clausen? this is ridiculous. When Clausen tears it up in Carolina, don't say i told ya so
    Image
    3elieve
    User avatar
    Throwdown
    * NET Baller *
     
    Posts: 19054
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:02 am
    Location: Graham, WA


  • Pete Carroll has a pretty good track record of turning very young QBs into NFL quality QBs. Whether they start and play for four years, start for a short time, or come off the bench he always seemed to have adequate players to run his offense.

    If this equates to the NFL or not remains to be seen, at the very least we can say, he has an eye for talent and apparently knows what he’s looking for to run his offensive schemes. Should he see someone in the draft next year, my only hope would be the FO doesn’t reach to take him and does what they did this year, take value at each round.

    But back to topic, if Charlie Whitehurst is a “franchise type” QB his talent should show through during training camp, preseason, practice, and field play when he’s needed. If he’s not the right fit, it makes no difference what you traded to get him you’re only throwing good money after bad to prove you didn’t make a mistake (something I hope this FO never does).

    IMO, you start the best players at each position, each regular season game, whether they’re a ten year veteran, free agent, first round draft pick, or a UFA. No exception.
    "Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis."
    Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.
    (St. Augustine of Hippo)

    "Perfer et obdura; dolor hic tibi proderit olim."
    (“Ovid”)
    User avatar
    FidelisHawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 327
    Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:39 am


  • If you recall Hass was Mr. August for Green Bay when he got a chance to play, where it was not starter caliber players he was able to tear them up, an indication he was able to pick apart teams, play smart and show his potential.

    If Whitehurst is that good it will show.

    Oh and as far as Pete and QB's, they were coached a lot by a guy on the other side of the lake, Sark worked with them much more the Pete, possibly why you seen a drop off last year at USC in QB play.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Used to be an Alumni till they pulled a USC on me...
    .Net official Clueless, Dumbass, Douche, Simpleton, CensoredTard , Idiot, member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 10081
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • The best man will compete for the job, Matt will be assumed starter, but they will be testing the CW waters (not just in camp).

    The reality of our Oline might be a better litmus ...
    If you think our Oline's going to magically and imediately improve overnight...well, it's "possible" but not realistic. Teams/coaches had our number long enough now, "bring 'em in, and keep bringing them in and watch the Hawks fold". That's how it went down last year especially.

    One is an experienced QB in his final contract yr, but one with wheels/scramble ability of molasses (yes, even compared to CW), a developed problem telgraphing now (uugh), and an arm that I question (forget the long ball...I'm just talking 6-10yrd outs), ...on top of a history of some of the most boneheaded ints seen in the league.
    I trust his reads at the line however.

    The other is unproven as of yet. I don't expect him to "light it up" his first yr with this nominally revamped team...but more consistent play from him is more plausible then the QB above overcoming the issues I see and listed.

    The Hass days are closing (being nice here, I think they closed already), it's time to think about the future. Play Whitehurst as much as possible, if he supercedes...he's now your starter and likely QB candidate to move fwd with.
    "Dyin' ain't much of a livin', boy" - Josey Wales
    User avatar
    OldKingDoom
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1960
    Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 2:43 am


  • Unsilent_Majority wrote:
    Logical Seahawk wrote:
    kearly wrote:As such, starting Hasselbeck this year could lead to a domino effect that damages the team long term at the QB position, (especially if he plays well enough to get an extension). We can look back and see how trading a future 3rd last year for Butler may very well have cost the team the ability to draft Clausen at #40 (since not having that 3rd this year complicated the CW deal).

    Have you not paid any attention to the Panthers team thinking Clausen is full of him self, and Steve Smith basically saying Clausen is a punk. I would have watched him in Seattle ruin our organization.


    Have you paid any attention? That rumor was bogus from day 1. You could smell it a mile away with the "we're told" as its source. Anyone who believes what they read on PFT, and bleacher report for that matter as truth is gulible. And when that douche Florio who started that rumor was expected to go on the air with Steve Smith he tucked his slimey little tail and ran like a bitch yesterday. This hate on Jimmy Clausen and love fest for Tim Tebow is a joke. Here's a link to Steve Smiths actual opinion.

    http://wfnz.cbslocal.com/2010/05/07/ste ... #more-3446

    Maybe Logical is the unnamed source?
    49ers webzone: Win or lose, i hope you injure Sherman. Like a serious career ending injury. I don't want him to get paid.
    49ers webzone: noise should not be the overwhelming reason a team is favored. they need to spray noise-damping foam onto the ceiling of that place.
    User avatar
    BlueTalon
    * NET Curmudgeon *
    * NET Curmudgeon *
     
    Posts: 7377
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:06 am
    Location: Eastern Washington


  • BlueTalon wrote:Maybe Logical is the unnamed source?


    Might as well be. I'm not against reading the site with a grain of salt, but if you read anything that is from an unnamed source or similar word usage don't believe it. Imo unless Adam Shefter, Jay Glazer, or Jason La Canfora are standing by the rumor I don't believe it. And yes I left Peter King and John Clayton off that list cuz imo half of what they say is speculation these days. Shefter, Glazer, and La Canfora just report what they hear and have awesome inside sources.
    Hawks are 4-0 when Lynch gets atleast 20 touches.

    Scottemojo wrote:As for the rest of your post, well...you convinced me. You know more than everyone else. I bow to your superior knowledge
    User avatar
    Unsilent_Majority
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1121
    Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:52 am


  • chris98251 wrote:
    Oh and as far as Pete and QB's, they were coached a lot by a guy on the other side of the lake, Sark worked with them much more the Pete, possibly why you seen a drop off last year at USC in QB play.


    True, but I feel USCs drop off at QB (if you want to call 9-3 a drop off) had more to do with Sanchez leaving as a junior and having to start Barkley as a true freshman, before he was ready, than anything else.

    Perhaps not that much different than the QB situation for the Seahawks now.
    "Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis."
    Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.
    (St. Augustine of Hippo)

    "Perfer et obdura; dolor hic tibi proderit olim."
    (“Ovid”)
    User avatar
    FidelisHawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 327
    Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:39 am


  • FidelisHawk wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:
    Oh and as far as Pete and QB's, they were coached a lot by a guy on the other side of the lake, Sark worked with them much more the Pete, possibly why you seen a drop off last year at USC in QB play.


    True, but I feel USCs drop off at QB (if you want to call 9-3 a drop off) had more to do with Sanchez leaving as a junior and having to start Barkley as a true freshman, before he was ready, than anything else.

    Perhaps not that much different than the QB situation for the Seahawks now.


    USC actually played very well last year considering they lost Sanchez and 3 NFL Caliber linebackers. That kind of talent is impossible to replace and the fact that they went 9-3 with not a lot of talent speaks to Pete's coaching prowess.

    Carroll knows how good Matt can be when he's not getting abused by opposing defenses who know he HAS to throw. I was surprised to even see the topic broached but apparently there are a lot of people with strong and varying opinions on the matter.

    My prediction, Matt will come damn close to making the Pro Bowl this year. It's rare for anybody to have a bad year then make the Pro Bowl no matter how well they play.


    Just to add to that, on NFL Access they were talking about Karlos Dansby going to Miami and then showed Hasselbeck getting sacked by FOUR Cardinals! That's the kinda blocking he had to put up with all season and people call him injury prone...if that's the case then Matt Stafford is also injury prone and should be traded, released or moved to backup right away.
    "God Bless the Seattle Seahawks" Cortez Kennedy
    User avatar
    ivotuk
    * NET Nobody *
     
    Posts: 8050
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:29 pm


  • Unsilent_Majority wrote:
    BlueTalon wrote:Maybe Logical is the unnamed source?


    Might as well be. I'm not against reading the site with a grain of salt, but if you read anything that is from an unnamed source or similar word usage don't believe it. Imo unless Adam Shefter, Jay Glazer, or Jason La Canfora are standing by the rumor I don't believe it. And yes I left Peter King and John Clayton off that list cuz imo half of what they say is speculation these days. Shefter, Glazer, and La Canfora just report what they hear and have awesome inside sources.

    Definitely not haha, now if i was ever asked about his HS play, i could be a credible source. I just think you guys think to much about somebody "we could have got". I doubt Clausen will tear it up, and i wouldn't be surprised if Matt Moore has a good year, sealing his spot the next year. It "could" be 3-5 years till we see him start.
    Image
    User avatar
    Logical Seahawk
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 108
    Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 4:56 am
    Location: Los Angeles, CA


  • Smurf wrote:Matt should be the starting QB in 2010.

    Period.



    :13: At least until someone wins it.
    Image

    My nickname for Wilson....Silent Russassin. He's calm and collective and will KILL you silently. No smack talk, no warning, kills you silently while getting the job done!
    depecheSeahawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 632
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:22 am
    Location: Lacey, WA


  • Wow. Didn't even look at the posts...just responding to the title.
    Let's just soot him and put him out to pasture...
    Would the season PLEASE hurry up and get here!
    Image
    Image
    "Make good teams look bad and make bad teams look terrible!" -Michael Robinson
    User avatar
    BlueTalons
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1115
    Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 11:36 am
    Location: Spanaway, WA


  • BlueTalons wrote:Wow. Didn't even look at the posts...just responding to the title.
    Let's just soot him and put him out to pasture...
    Would the season PLEASE hurry up and get here!
    Image


    But what about all our speculation?
    Quoting Montanahawk05:
    the foremost reason, by a long margin, of Seattle's continued struggles the last three years is Matt Hasselbeck. Hass's arm strength has declined to the vanishing point. [b]They're stacking the line and jumping routes because they don't respect Hasselbeck's arm.
    User avatar
    lostlobos
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1691
    Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 2:46 pm


  • lostlobos wrote:
    BlueTalons wrote:Wow. Didn't even look at the posts...just responding to the title.
    Let's just soot him and put him out to pasture...
    Would the season PLEASE hurry up and get here!
    Image


    But what about all our speculation?

    Yes! haahhaha
    Image
    User avatar
    Logical Seahawk
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 108
    Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 4:56 am
    Location: Los Angeles, CA


  • I think i should start another thread asking if Hasselbeck should be the backup or not.
    Image
    User avatar
    Tech Worlds
    * Capt'n Dom *
    * Capt'n Dom *
     
    Posts: 9260
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
    Location: Granite Falls, WA


  • Maybe start a thread about Running Backs or something we don't have statistical evidence behind lol
    Image
    User avatar
    Logical Seahawk
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 108
    Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 4:56 am
    Location: Los Angeles, CA


  • Tech Worlds wrote:I think i should start another thread asking if Hasselbeck should be the backup or not.

    How about infecting every single new thread by talking/bickering about it instead - keeping it to it's own topic(s) would make too much sense.
    Championships are forever.
    User avatar
    Happy
    * NET Lead Admin *
     
    Posts: 8574
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:47 am


  • ivotuk wrote:
    My prediction, Matt will come damn close to making the Pro Bowl this year. It's rare for anybody to have a bad year then make the Pro Bowl no matter how well they play.



    That's pretty lame. What does that prediction even mean and how is it quantifiabe?
    "Some people here have been groomed to accept mediocrity and lame ducks, I'm on board with the vibrato!" -SouthSoundHawk
    "BFS is kicking ass in here." -kearly (8/9/2013)
    User avatar
    bestfightstory
    * Glitter over Knives *
     
    Posts: 8511
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:13 pm


  • i personally think hasselbeck is done as far as being a probowl QB in this league. could he be an effective, winning QB still? maybe. the way i see it, whitehurst should be given every opportunity to win the job in training camp. if he can't, then hasselbeck should start the season as the starter. if he doesn't perform in the first 5 games, he should be benched. either way you look at it, whitehurst needs to get alot of playing time this season or what was the point in trading for him? here's the problems i have with the QB situation: 1) they should've made a definitive decision in the offseason on who was going to be their future franchise QB, play them immediately, and dispose of the others. to me, they didn't do that. 2) they traded for a QB who nobody knows what he can do and they payed alot for him with picks and money. that QB then needed to be named the starter and the other veteran should have been traded while he still had good value. 3) they decided against drafting a QB in the draft assuming the top guys wouldn't be available to them and the rest weren't as good as whitehurst. by doing that, they missed out on arguably the best QB in the draft and they could've gotten him later than expected at a much cheaper price.


    the mistake they made was not making a decision between going with the veteran or going with the new QB brought in. you have to go with one or the other. then if your choice was matt, then you stand pat until next yrs draft or you draft one in this draft and groom him to be the QB of the future. now they have the problem of if matt fails, you go with whitehurst. if he's not any good, you have to still draft a future QB, give them a ton of money and you wasted a year. i would've passed on whitehurst, let matt be the QB for the year, and left the option open of drafting a QB in this draft or next yrs draft if the guy we wanted was available this yr.
    ctbullets
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 18
    Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:18 pm


  • Hass should start.
    I'm In!


    What attracted you to the Seahawks?
    “It’s a combination of what I believe the coaches are doing here, the atmosphere and what I think we’re going to do here in the future. I think we’re going to win and win a lot and be a championship team.” – Zac Miller, August 4, 2011
    User avatar
    Seafan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3414
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 2:30 pm
    Location: Helotes, TX


  • ctbullets wrote:i personally think hasselbeck is done as far as being a probowl QB in this league. could he be an effective, winning QB still? maybe. the way i see it, whitehurst should be given every opportunity to win the job in training camp. if he can't, then hasselbeck should start the season as the starter. if he doesn't perform in the first 5 games, he should be benched. either way you look at it, whitehurst needs to get alot of playing time this season or what was the point in trading for him? here's the problems i have with the QB situation: 1) they should've made a definitive decision in the offseason on who was going to be their future franchise QB, play them immediately, and dispose of the others. to me, they didn't do that.

    How is it you know they didn't do exactly what you just said? They definitely could have decided there was no good option in this years draft and Seneca wasn't (with his learning disability) going to learn this system before he retires. Considering Matts injury history, the last few years, it makes sense to find the best possible option (per they're evaluation of who is available) and that could be why they only offered a 2 year deal. Maybe Charlie (while being the best option) still leaves big question as to his leadership ability. Yes he has a large contract for a back up, but its only two mil this year and only escalates to full value, if CW becomes the starter, I believe both seasons.

    2) they traded for a QB who nobody knows what he can do and they payed alot for him with picks and money. that QB then needed to be named the starter and the other veteran should have been traded while he still had good value.

    See note #1


    3) they decided against drafting a QB in the draft assuming the top guys wouldn't be available to them and the rest weren't as good as whitehurst. by doing that, they missed out on arguably the best QB in the draft and they could've gotten him later than expected at a much cheaper price.

    If they thought Clausen was the answer, do you think they would have passed on him at 6? and again at 14? Thinking he would be available at 40? It doesn't add up. Most experts expected him to be gone before our first pick. To me, this only leans more towards the argument, they didn't believe Clausen to be the answer and weren't willing to invest 40+ Mill and multiple years in him. That makes CW look like a hell of a deal if that was they're belief.


    the mistake they made was not making a decision between going with the veteran or going with the new QB brought in. you have to go with one or the other. then if your choice was Matt, then you stand pat until next yrs draft (Unless you have no faith in Seneca and consider Matts recent injury history)or you draft one in this draft and groom him to be the QB of the future(again, unless you don't like who you think will be available). now they have the problem of if matt fails, you go with whitehurst. if he's not any good, you have to still draft a future QB, give them a ton of money and you wasted a year ( which is way better than wasting the next 4 years, because you drafted a guy you don't believe will succeed). i would've passed on whitehurst, let matt be the QB for the year, and left the option open of drafting a QB in this draft or next yrs draft if the guy we wanted was available this yr.
    Quoting Montanahawk05:
    the foremost reason, by a long margin, of Seattle's continued struggles the last three years is Matt Hasselbeck. Hass's arm strength has declined to the vanishing point. [b]They're stacking the line and jumping routes because they don't respect Hasselbeck's arm.
    User avatar
    lostlobos
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1691
    Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 2:46 pm


  • How is it you know they didn't do exactly what you just said? They definitely could have decided there was no good option in this years draft and Seneca wasn't (with his learning disability) going to learn this system before he retires. Considering Matts injury history, the last few years, it makes sense to find the best possible option (per they're evaluation of who is available) and that could be why they only offered a 2 year deal. Maybe Charlie (while being the best option) still leaves big question as to his leadership ability. Yes he has a large contract for a back up, but its only two mil this year and only escalates to full value, if CW becomes the starter, I believe both seasons.

    i understand the intent of the whitehurst trade sort of..it makes sense if you believe he is your starter. but not if he's the backup even for 1 season. youre not right about the contract. his deal is 2yrs 8mil guarenteed with 2mil in incentives. is that a backup deal or even a 1yr starter, contract alone?? he made 535K last season. then on top of that you give up a 3rd and 20spots in 2nd rd? that tells me, we got this guy to be our starter now, not a backup to compete with the incumbent. it makes no sense, you cant have it both ways. then when you make that trade, you then should trade hasselbeck.

    If they thought Clausen was the answer, do you think they would have passed on him at 6? and again at 14? Thinking he would be available at 40? It doesn't add up. Most experts expected him to be gone before our first pick. To me, this only leans more towards the argument, they didn't believe Clausen to be the answer and weren't willing to invest 40+ Mill and multiple years in him. That makes CW look like a hell of a deal if that was they're belief.

    i understand that, but if you dont trade for whitehurst, you then have the option of drafting a QB if one you like falls in your lap in 2010 or draft one next yr. if you kept hasselbeck and said he is your starter for 2010, you then groom a drafted guy or wait til 2011. we are paying for 2 starting QBs is my point.

    (Unless you have no faith in Seneca and consider Matts recent injury history)

    they couldn't stand pat with seneca and matt. if they were concerned about matts injury history, they should've traded him while he had value.

    (again, unless you don't like who you think will be available)

    then you wait to draft your guy next yr and keep matt. if you believed this, you don't make the whitehurst trade.

    ( which is way better than wasting the next 4 years, because you drafted a guy you don't believe will succeed)

    so you waste 2yrs with whitehurst plus picks, and money while still keeping around your current 35yr old starter? if that doesnt work, you then have to draft a QB, and wait 2-3 years while he develops and lose in the meantime?

    my point is you either A) keep matt, draft a QB in '10 or '11..OR.. B) trade for whitehurst believing he is your starter and trade hasselbeck...if whitehurst flops, you can then scrap him and draft your guy in '11. you cant possibly do both and have it be a success. you're paying 2 starting QBs and possibly neither are the answer. you create animosity in the locker room and between both guys. in the NFL you have to one direction with the QB position.
    ctbullets
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 18
    Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:18 pm


  • I guess I'm not in as big of a hurrry as some. The way I see it, Matt still gives us the best chance to win now and unless you are attempting to dump the season to be in place for a high draft pick, you try and win every game. I could see the logic, after watching Seneca last year, in thinking, if Matt gets hurt, we are doomed and CW looks like he could be a steal for a Bates style offense, so bringing him in and letting the chips fall were they may, seems logical to me.

    I could see this playing out well if Matt doesn't play the whole season or doesn't perform to expectations, CW will have had some time to learn the new offense and become familiar with the guys he will be throwing to.

    I think you can open a bigger can of worms rolling the dice and trying to predict the future.

    We watched as PC and JS patiently waited to see who was availabe with each pich, rather than trying to trade up to grab someone, who may have been there anyway.

    I think its always a smart strategy to go with what you know and see howw things fall.

    But we will see.
    Quoting Montanahawk05:
    the foremost reason, by a long margin, of Seattle's continued struggles the last three years is Matt Hasselbeck. Hass's arm strength has declined to the vanishing point. [b]They're stacking the line and jumping routes because they don't respect Hasselbeck's arm.
    User avatar
    lostlobos
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1691
    Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 2:46 pm


  • ctbullets wrote:[color=#FFFF00]
    my point is you either A) keep matt, draft a QB in '10 or '11..OR.. B) trade for whitehurst believing he is your starter and trade hasselbeck...if whitehurst flops, you can then scrap him and draft your guy in '11. you cant possibly do both and have it be a success. you're paying 2 starting QBs and possibly neither are the answer. you create animosity in the locker room and between both guys. in the NFL you have to one direction with the QB position.


    The problem with your point though, is the FO didn’t trade Matt, they traded Seneca.

    It’s painfully obvious to me they feel Matt can run their offense and Charlie is a sizable upgrade over Seneca. Now their opinion could change the closer they get to regular season, or by year’s end, and if that happens so be it.

    For the time being, the fact we have six running backs, six tight ends, and fourteen wide receivers in camp may suggest our offensive wows last year may be linked to something other than our QB play.

    However all this shakes out, this year’s, training camp, preseason, even the regular season should be one of the most interesting (and debated I should think) since Mike Holmgren blew up Dennis Erickson’s 8 and 8 team.
    "Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis."
    Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.
    (St. Augustine of Hippo)

    "Perfer et obdura; dolor hic tibi proderit olim."
    (“Ovid”)
    User avatar
    FidelisHawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 327
    Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:39 am


  • lostlobos-

    i understand your position as well but why trade for whitehurst and pay him as a starter? it makes zero sense. if you were ok with matt being the starter, fine, but then why the trade for another starter? my point was the organization needs to make a decision on who "the guy" is. i'd be livid if we traded picks and gave starter money for whitehurst if the guy starts 1 yr and flops. in the meantime, we could've drafted and developed a QB by then for 1 draft pick. basically if whitehurst isn't a better than average starter or even worse doesn't get on the field, this trade is a colossal disaster and could set us back yrs. this new regime could be a failure before it even starts. you said you were'nt in a hurry but if you think about it, you really should be.
    ctbullets
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 18
    Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:18 pm


  • FidelisHawk wrote:
    ctbullets wrote:[color=#FFFF00]
    my point is you either A) keep matt, draft a QB in '10 or '11..OR.. B) trade for whitehurst believing he is your starter and trade hasselbeck...if whitehurst flops, you can then scrap him and draft your guy in '11. you cant possibly do both and have it be a success. you're paying 2 starting QBs and possibly neither are the answer. you create animosity in the locker room and between both guys. in the NFL you have to one direction with the QB position.


    The problem with your point though, is the FO didn’t trade Matt, they traded Seneca.

    It’s painfully obvious to me they feel Matt can run their offense and Charlie is a sizable upgrade over Seneca. Now their opinion could change the closer they get to regular season, or by year’s end, and if that happens so be it.

    For the time being, the fact we have six running backs, six tight ends, and fourteen wide receivers in camp may suggest our offensive wows last year may be linked to something other than our QB play.

    However all this shakes out, this year’s, training camp, preseason, even the regular season should be one of the most interesting (and debated I should think) since Mike Holmgren blew up Dennis Erickson’s 8 and 8 team.


    my goodness, no offense whatsoever to you, but you're not getting it. we traded wallace for a 7th rd pick. we gave up a 3rd, 20 spots in rd 2, and 2yrs 8mil contract for whitehurst to be a backup! how do you justify that? whitehurst wasn't brought in to be the backup for a year. do you understand what i mean? they have to make a decision at QB or we're not going anywhere.
    ctbullets
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 18
    Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:18 pm


  • ctbullets wrote:lostlobos-

    i understand your position as well but why trade for whitehurst and pay him as a starter? it makes zero sense. if you were ok with matt being the starter, fine, but then why the trade for another starter? my point was the organization needs to make a decision on who "the guy" is. i'd be livid if we traded picks and gave starter money for whitehurst if the guy starts 1 yr and flops. in the meantime, we could've drafted and developed a QB by then for 1 draft pick. basically if whitehurst isn't a better than average starter or even worse doesn't get on the field, this trade is a colossal disaster and could set us back yrs. this new regime could be a failure before it even starts. you said you were'nt in a hurry but if you think about it, you really should be.


    What's being left out is pretty significant detail here. Seattle wasn't the only team involved for CW's services. The Cards were also a factor. This is probably why the contract is as high as it is and the reason for overpayment. IMO, CW chose his team and agreed to terms before the Chargers and the Seahawks settled the trade. Without the initial agreement between the Seahawks and CW the trade doesn't take place. CW was brought in to compete with Matt H for the QB position and also be an upgrade as a backup. If CW unseats Matt in TC then he deserves to start. I agree with the philosophy that the best players should be on the field. If CW turns out better than Matt H, then he should play. Based on history, Matt is the superior player currently. It's his job at this point to lose.
    User avatar
    hawkfan68
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 3508
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • I would like to point out that Paul Allen wipes his ass with more money than Whitehurst is paid. Also, in a year where there is no salary cap and a desire to improve the QB position, I think the trade was reasonable both in draft picks exchanged and salary.
    <--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--> GO SEAHAWKS <--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><-->
    User avatar
    CamanoIslandJQ
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 907
    Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:11 am
    Location: Camano Island, WA


Next


It is currently Wed Aug 27, 2014 1:20 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE ARCHIVES ]




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests