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
  • FidelisHawk wrote:
    This I do know for sure, if you improve your roster every year and play your best players every year, your odds to win a championship improve every year.


    Disagree, sometimes you have to let the younger (maybe lesser) player develop otherwise your roster gets old and stagnant leading to sharp sharp sharp declines.

    It sounds great to say "you just play the best guy every year" but in the real world that is in fact sometimes a mistake because guys need time to become the "best guy"

    Some times you need to play potential over current production. Tough choices need to be made.

    You have 2 options at QB:

    Keep signing veteran stop gaps (which is all Matt is at this point)

    or

    Go with a young guy (which is what Whitehurst is at this point) and commit to their development.


    As much as some of us may want to believe otherwise, guys can't complete their development (and become the best player) till they see the field (and usually till they see the field for a full season or more).


    Think of it another way:

    Does 2005 ever happen if Holmgren does not commit to Hasselbeck in 2001 and go back to him after Dilfer got hurt in 2002? I've said it before and I'll say it again, Mike Holmgren got damn lucky that Trent Dilfer got hurt in 2002 otherwise 2005 very likely never happens.

    Who is the better NFL QB? Dilfer or Hasselbeck? Who was better in 2001? Who played in 2001? Matt needed time even though he was not better than Dilfer, without that time he may have never become better than Dilfer but Seattle needed him to become better than Dilfer so he got the time.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


  • Does 2005 ever happen if Holmgren does not commit to Hasselbeck in 2001 and go back to him after Dilfer got hurt in 2002? I've said it before and I'll say it again, Mike Holmgren got damn lucky that Trent Dilfer got hurt in 2002 otherwise 2005 very likely never happens.

    Who is the better NFL QB? Dilfer or Hasselbeck? Who was better in 2001? Who played in 2001? Matt needed time even though he was not better than Dilfer, without that time he may have never become better than Dilfer but Seattle needed him to become better than Dilfer so he got the time.


    I see that logic but it could work both ways. If the Cards kept Leinart (their developmental QB) instead of Warner (their better QB that year), they don't make the SB.

    Yes they were a more complete team than us, but who knows what might happen this year. We might get lucky, somehow make the playoffs and get hot at the right time. Hass gives us a better chance at doing that until CW proves otherwise.
    User avatar
    hoxrox
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1361
    Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:29 pm


  • hoxrox wrote:
    Does 2005 ever happen if Holmgren does not commit to Hasselbeck in 2001 and go back to him after Dilfer got hurt in 2002? I've said it before and I'll say it again, Mike Holmgren got damn lucky that Trent Dilfer got hurt in 2002 otherwise 2005 very likely never happens.

    Who is the better NFL QB? Dilfer or Hasselbeck? Who was better in 2001? Who played in 2001? Matt needed time even though he was not better than Dilfer, without that time he may have never become better than Dilfer but Seattle needed him to become better than Dilfer so he got the time.


    I see that logic but it could work both ways. If the Cards kept Leinart (their developmental QB) instead of Warner (their better QB that year), they don't make the SB.

    Yes they were a more complete team than us, but who knows what might happen this year. We might get lucky, somehow make the playoffs and get hot at the right time. Hass gives us a better chance at doing that until CW proves otherwise.


    Warner barely took the Cards to the playoffs and he had waaaaay better recievers, a better defense, and a better offensive line than Matt. Hass will have to play like Peyton Manning (or better) to get this team to the Superbowl, and I think we both can agree that won't happen.
    Last edited by Trrrroy on Tue May 11, 2010 1:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.
    I hate Tim Ruskell.
    User avatar
    Trrrroy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2873
    Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:24 am


  • Trrrroy wrote:
    Warner barely took the Cards to the playoffs and he had waaaaay better recievers, a better defense, and a better offensive line than Matt. Hass will have to play like Peyton Manning (or better) to get this team to the Superbowl, and I think we both can agree that won't happen.


    No , he may not agree. Many of the Hass Fans on this board think Matt is just as good as Peyton Manning.
    Image
    User avatar
    Tech Worlds
    * Capt'n Dom *
    * Capt'n Dom *
     
    Posts: 9782
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
    Location: Granite Falls, WA


  • hoxrox wrote:
    Does 2005 ever happen if Holmgren does not commit to Hasselbeck in 2001 and go back to him after Dilfer got hurt in 2002? I've said it before and I'll say it again, Mike Holmgren got damn lucky that Trent Dilfer got hurt in 2002 otherwise 2005 very likely never happens.

    Who is the better NFL QB? Dilfer or Hasselbeck? Who was better in 2001? Who played in 2001? Matt needed time even though he was not better than Dilfer, without that time he may have never become better than Dilfer but Seattle needed him to become better than Dilfer so he got the time.


    I see that logic but it could work both ways. If the Cards kept Leinart (their developmental QB) instead of Warner (their better QB that year), they don't make the SB.

    Yes they were a more complete team than us, but who knows what might happen this year. We might get lucky, somehow make the playoffs and get hot at the right time. Hass gives us a better chance at doing that until CW proves otherwise.



    I somewhat agree.

    If you believe this team has a realistic shot at winning the Super Bowl than you go with Matt.

    I just don't see how anyone could believe that.


    I'd also say there is a difference between Leinert and Whitehurst:

    Leinert has a 6 year contract and came to the Cardinals as a 23 year old rookie so sitting behind Warner for a few years and learning is actually been proven to be a smart strategy for developing a player, now he either gets on the field or I'd say the Cardinals have officially given up on him.

    Whitehurst has a 2 year contract and has already sat for 4 seasons (same amount of time and same age as Leinert), its time for him to get on the field if you believe him to be a starter long term.


    Had this team drafted Clausen instead of trading for Whitehurst, believe it or not I'd be on the opposite side of this debate. I'd want Matt to start for this year at least and maybe 1-2 more while Clausen gets his feet wet. Whitehurst is 27 its time to throw him in the deep end and see what he has.


    Even separating the level of talent differences, Seattle is in a completely different situation than Arizona was
    MARTYREDwarner
     


  • CamanoIslandJQ wrote:
    ctbullets wrote:
    CamanoIslandJQ wrote: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.


    how exactly did we improve the position? we got a better backup? and our starter is beat up and a year further from his prime. how can you ppl be comfortable with this? this isn't 5 yrs ago when matt was a pro-bowler. let me spell this out the best i can: in the nfl today, if you don't have a franchise QB, you are going nowhere. matt isn't a franchise QB anymore and whitehurst was a franchises 3rd QB. with all due respect, if you don't understand this, i'm sorry, you're not in touch with reality.


    If you read my post again you may see that I said "a desire to improve the QB position". I think that desire was predicated on the need to replace Seneca Wallace with a promising young QB that better fits Bates system and has the potential, unlike Wallace, to start after learning the system and being tutored by Hasselbeck. Pete Carroll obviously thinks that Whitehurst was his guy because his talents fit better than other FA's available and also has better potential than any QB's in the draft.

    I understand your statement that "without a franchise QB, you are going nowhere." However, the bottom line IMO is that franchise QB's do not grow on trees and as such must be found early, before they become a franchise QB. If you go after an established franchise QB you'll pay a mint in draft picks and cash. To obtain a future franchise QB (before he becomes a franchise QB) obviously requires exceptional ability to research and evaluate all options available. I think this is what PC and JS did and based on their evaluations, Whitehurst was their guy. I believe they felt he was probably better than what the draft picks traded to aquire him would have brought and they didn't see a draftable QB to their liking. I would be interested to know what your solution for the Hawks not having a franchise QB might be.


    my solution cant happen now. i wanted mark sanchez last draft and this yr i wanted clausen at 14 and after we passed, i wanted to trade up in 2nd to get him. now i dont see how we can justify not starting whitehurst. what exactly can we possibly win with matt as qb? we mine as well start developing CW and if he fails, we draft a qb in 1st rd like we should've done 2 yrs ago.
    ctbullets
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 18
    Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:18 pm


  • So this subject is so beaten to death it hurts, but I really have a crush on warner28 so I have to ask a question. Given the logic that Matt is just a stopgap, what does that make Jesus? A sub-stopgap? What is Carrol thinking?
    User avatar
    MysterMatt
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 6975
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:12 am


  • I honestly have no idea what they are doing with Whitehurst, that is why I am concerned.

    When the deal for him was made I assumed Hasselbeck would be dealt too, now I have no idea. Maybe some are right and he was brought in to be nothing more than a back up I just can't see how that makes sense.

    We will find out. I like Carroll and 90% of what he has done so far but I fear the way they are handling the QB situation will delay the development of this team if not outright stunt it completely.

    We will see.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


  • warner28 wrote:I honestly have no idea what they are doing with Whitehurst, that is why I am concerned.

    When the deal for him was made I assumed Hasselbeck would be dealt too, now I have no idea. Maybe some are right and he was brought in to be nothing more than a back up I just can't see how that makes sense.

    We will find out. I like Carroll and 90% of what he has done so far but I fear the way they are handling the QB situation will delay the development of this team if not outright stunt it completely.

    We will see.


    that's been my point exactly! i've loved almost every move and it all makes sense but this whitehurst trade. i've been saying it doesn't make any sense unless the plan was to trade matt. there is no way possible they made this trade with the belief CW would be the backup. PC/JS were even open to drafting clausen even after we made the trade! i think they realize the CW trade was a mistake and now they don't know what to do with him. now the QB situation is still unresolved for this year and the future. we will have to draft a #1 QB and pay him 40-50mil guarenteed and wait a couple yrs to develop them. this is going to be a major problem and alot of hawks fans don't see it.
    ctbullets
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 18
    Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:18 pm


  • I don't think a willingness to draft Clausen indicates they believe the Whitehurst deal was a mistake.

    Jimmy Johnson took Steve Walsh with a 1st round pick in the supplamental draft the same year he took Aikman #1 overall in the regular draft, did that mean he thought the Aikman pick was a mistake?


    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.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


  • Or, perhaps they really do believe CW will work out, all the Hass has tightened his grip stuff is BS, and they figured that everyone would look at the CW trade and think we are patsies, then they swing the White and Washington switch position deals.

    How will you look at it if they do in fact start CW, and he does middle of the road with a glimpse of potential to be special? I think Matt's role this season is the same as Dilfers was when we signed him. Mentor, teach, be ready if something happens.

    If CW has trouble, is Matt a good enough second option to go with until CW's light either goes on or we decide to draft someone else? Who knows, maybe Teel or Reilly develope into something.
    seedhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2594
    Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 5:51 am


  • The difference between Matt and Dilfer is that Dilfer was brought in to be the back up and only after Matt got hurt did he start, as of now Matt is the starter. Whitehurst is closer to the Dilfer role right now.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


  • "Hasselbeck is getting the majority of the repetitions during the practices, but Whitehurst is getting a healthy chunk, too. Mike Teel isn't seeing much time at all during the 11-on-11 team drills."

    "But watching the two minicamps, it was very clear there was a difference in the way starter Matt Hasselbeck went through his progressions, came off his first read, and the way Whitehurst did. Whitehurst had many more instances in which he ended up throwing the ball away, neither finding nor forcing a spot to throw the ball."

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/s ... essio.html
    User avatar
    Jville
    * NET Alumni *
     
    Posts: 3705
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:49 pm


  • warner28 wrote:Disagree, sometimes you have to let the younger (maybe lesser) player develop otherwise your roster gets old and stagnant leading to sharp sharp sharp declines.

    It sounds great to say "you just play the best guy every year" but in the real world that is in fact sometimes a mistake because guys need time to become the "best guy"

    Some times you need to play potential over current production. Tough choices need to be made.

    You have 2 options at QB:

    Keep signing veteran stop gaps (which is all Matt is at this point)

    or

    Go with a young guy (which is what Whitehurst is at this point) and commit to their development.


    As much as some of us may want to believe otherwise, guys can't complete their development (and become the best player) till they see the field (and usually till they see the field for a full season or more).


    Think of it another way:

    Does 2005 ever happen if Holmgren does not commit to Hasselbeck in 2001 and go back to him after Dilfer got hurt in 2002? I've said it before and I'll say it again, Mike Holmgren got damn lucky that Trent Dilfer got hurt in 2002 otherwise 2005 very likely never happens.

    Who is the better NFL QB? Dilfer or Hasselbeck? Who was better in 2001? Who played in 2001? Matt needed time even though he was not better than Dilfer, without that time he may have never become better than Dilfer but Seattle needed him to become better than Dilfer so he got the time.


    Warner28, I love you man! Always precise, to the point, and composed, but sadly, I must disagree as well.

    Not to rewrite history but who’s to say Holmgren did it right? Dilfer was indeed the better QB in 2001, no argument there. But Matt’s improvement after he was benched and watched how a veteran QB handles a game was enormous. Had Mike truly had an open competition and played Matt in a backup role in 2001, the Seahawks may have won more games in both years.

    Alas we can only speculate if it was the watching as a backup or the beating as a starter that caused him to turn his game around.

    I feel, since his improvement coincided with his benching, it was the watching, reps with his receivers, and coaching his mistakes that made that change, opposed to losing games, booing fans, and sideline tirades. Of course that’s only my speculative opinion, feel free to disagree.

    But more to the point of this discussion, why start a player who is by the definition of this dialogue inferior and unproven? If the superior proven player is getting older and slower, the younger faster player with more potential will beat him out in due time. I see no need to hasten the procedure with an inferior product in the name of development.

    There are always opportunities to play these guys, people get hurt, you’re getting your “Gatorade” handed to you, you’re doing the handing, or let him play some downs if you just have to see what he can do. You get real game experience, game film to coach mistakes, and still have your “better” veteran to play another day and not forfeit games in the process.

    If the guy with all the potential turns out to never fulfill that promising career, you still have the “better” veteran version to hold down the fort until you can find someone who CAN beat him out.

    The “best guys” show their skills no matter what, in camp, preseason, and their opportunities during games. Good coaches spot it, cultivate it, and then exploit it, not the other way around.

    I think Carroll’s a good coach and perhaps Charlie’s the answer for the future. I’m just not ready to throw away ANY chances for wins for a peek into that future.
    "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: 330
    Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:39 am


  • warner28 wrote:I don't think a willingness to draft Clausen indicates they believe the Whitehurst deal was a mistake.

    Jimmy Johnson took Steve Walsh with a 1st round pick in the supplamental draft the same year he took Aikman #1 overall in the regular draft, did that mean he thought the Aikman pick was a mistake?


    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.


    you may be right about that but then why is hasselbeck still on the team? because they believe he's better than CW right now. i buy the competition thing also but not at QB. my theory is that they brought CW in to be "the guy", "their guy" like holmgren did with hasselbeck. they wanted CW to win the job and thought he would. now they got him and have seen what he has in camp and oops, he's not ready to be the guy or can't be the guy which we all knew coming in. now they know hasselbeck gives them the best chance to win now. like you said, this competition makes no sense. if you brought CW in to be the guy, then you trade matt(too late now) and go with CW. you use this season to see what you have and if you need to draft a QB in '11(we know the answer and could've told them before they wasted the money and picks on CW). ida drafted sanchez last yr and even after that mistake, ida used 14 on clausen this yr. that's just my opinion.
    ctbullets
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 18
    Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:18 pm


  • 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.
    "Unless you were in that meeting room and know what we're supposed to do, don't assume!" -T.J.H.
    User avatar
    JohnnyB
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 358
    Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:36 pm


  • No , he may not agree. Many of the Hass Fans on this board think Matt is just as good as Peyton Manning.


    And all the Hass detractors on this board are unable to tell the differrence between Hass's failings and the failings of the offense around him.
    "Unless you were in that meeting room and know what we're supposed to do, don't assume!" -T.J.H.
    User avatar
    JohnnyB
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 358
    Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:36 pm


  • 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?
    MARTYREDwarner
     


  • If youre going to look at the way Warner played when he was 38, you have to look at the way Brunell, George and Rypein all played when they were Hass' age.
    Image
    User avatar
    AbsolutNET
    * NET X's & O's Guru *
     
    Posts: 8824
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:24 am
    Location: PNW


  • ctbullets wrote:
    you may be right about that but then why is hasselbeck still on the team? because they believe he's better than CW right now. i buy the competition thing also but not at QB. my theory is that they brought CW in to be "the guy", "their guy" like holmgren did with hasselbeck. they wanted CW to win the job and thought he would. now they got him and have seen what he has in camp and oops, he's not ready to be the guy or can't be the guy which we all knew coming in. now they know hasselbeck gives them the best chance to win now. like you said, this competition makes no sense. if you brought CW in to be the guy, then you trade matt(too late now) and go with CW. you use this season to see what you have and if you need to draft a QB in '11(we know the answer and could've told them before they wasted the money and picks on CW). ida drafted sanchez last yr and even after that mistake, ida used 14 on clausen this yr. that's just my opinion.


    Actually, they said before minicamps started that there would be competition, but that Hass is in line to be the starting QB. They never said otherwise. They claimed that Whitehurst is what they want in a backup right now. The competition angle allows for the possibility that Whitehurst outperforms Hass in training camp (and I'm fairly sure that they will actually make their judgments based off of all they see in training camp, and not just off of 6 days of minicamp).

    I'll agree with you in one area: If they brought Whitehurst in to definitely be THE guy, then they should have traded Hasselbeck as soon as they found a decent offer. Of course, had they brought Whitehurst in to be THE guy, then it would seem odd for them to give him a 2-year contract. Based off of the facts, it looks as if...

    1. They were convinced that Wallace wasn't someone they could use in any capacity.
    2. They wanted a backup with potential to start.
    3. They aren't ready to jettison the face of the team, but they are preparing for life after his contract is up (at the end of this season).

    I think when you combine all of those factors, then we're looking at drafting a QB in the 2011 draft, guaranteed... how high a pick we use on the QB will be determined by what Whitehurst shows the team throughout this season, both in practice and in real games (assuming trends hold true and Hass misses time to injury).
    Image

    Super Bowl XLVIII Champions
    User avatar
    volsunghawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8329
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
    Location: Right outside Richard Sherman's house


  • AbsolutNET wrote:If youre going to look at the way Warner played when he was 38, you have to look at the way Brunell, George and Rypein all played when they were Hass' age.



    No, it makes more sense to assume Matt is going to turn into the Hall of Famer he's never been. :sarcasm_off:
    MARTYREDwarner
     


  • ctbullets wrote:you may be right about that but then why is hasselbeck still on the team? because they believe he's better than CW right now. i buy the competition thing also but not at QB. my theory is that they brought CW in to be "the guy", "their guy" like holmgren did with hasselbeck. they wanted CW to win the job and thought he would. now they got him and have seen what he has in camp and oops, he's not ready to be the guy or can't be the guy which we all knew coming in. now they know hasselbeck gives them the best chance to win now.

    The problem is, we don't know any of this. One reporter made a small blurb about Hass "tightening his grip" with no attribution, no quotes from anyone who matters, nothing. It could have very well just been the opinion of a reporter (who has never played the game), and nothing more.

    I've thought all along that PC knows CW is the man, but also knows the fan politics involved with having him win the position outright.

    I believe PC knows in the back of his head CW will get the starting nod sooner rather than later, and that Hasselbeck will lose the job on the field either though injury or, most likely, stinking the place up as he has over the last couple of years.

    With Hass honestly losing the job in front of his adoring fans, it becomes much easier for the FO to avoid a QB controversy and get their guy in with 100% support behind him. I feel this is very smart thinking. CW will be replacing a fan favorite and he doesn't have very many ways to successfully endear himself to the 12th Man. If he inherits the job because there is no other choice, it will make a much smoother transition and the fan base will be behind Touchdown Jesus from day one.
    Last edited by seattlesetters on Wed May 12, 2010 2:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    seattlesetters
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 564
    Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 3:45 pm


  • 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.

    Matt Hasselbeck is no Kurt Warner. He's not even close, never has been, never will be.
    seattlesetters
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 564
    Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 3:45 pm


  • seattlesetters 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.

    Matt Hasselbeck is no Kurt Warner. He's not even close, never has been, never will be.


    And this falsehood is why you're wrong about his future too.

    -Hasselbeck's QB rating last season? 75.1
    -Warner's rating the two years before he was cut by the Rams for being old and washed up at age 32? 67.4 and 72.9
    -Hasselbeck's best rating? 98.2 in '05
    -Warner's best rating with the Cardinals? 96.9 in '08

    So after Warner was cut for two bad seasons of being "washed up," he came back at age 37 to lead his team to the Super Bowl and played well enough at age 38 for them to be there, if only the rest of his team had been good enough.

    The point is nothing at all about who is the better QB, but whether or not we should expect QBs to decline in their mid thirties the way running backs do when they hit 30. No, we shouldn't. Scores of QBs in the NFL have proven it, including one guy who has been doing right in our faces.
    "Unless you were in that meeting room and know what we're supposed to do, don't assume!" -T.J.H.
    User avatar
    JohnnyB
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 358
    Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:36 pm


  • Like you said the team was not good enough, so who cares if the 38 year old QB might be?

    Lets assume the Cardinals were an up and coming roster, not quite ready to win titles but heading into 2010 the roster looks ready except the 38 year old QB has decided to hang it up.

    Guess what? Now that roster that has been developing and might just be ready to win a title will be taking a few steps back while the team finds its next QB.

    Wouldn't make more sense to find that QB before the team is ready to compete so when it is the QB is not holding it back?


    Lets say Matt is good in 2010, plays all the way through 2012 at a high level (just for the sake of argument), I'd expect this team to truly be ready (if Carroll and Schneider do an excellent job) to compete for titles in 2012 so they'd get 1 shot with Matt, then he retires and now Seattle spends 2013 and 2014 being held back by a developmental QB who by 2015 is ready to play but now several other positions are aging/hitting free agency which can sometimes be a difficult storm to weather.


    That is my fear and I don't see Matt lasting till 2012 much less beyond.


    IMO, the championship window of the roster that Carroll is building will most likely be 2012-2015 maybe extended a couple seasons if they replenish the roster well. I hate the idea of wasting any of those years developing a QB when the rest of the roster is ready which means after Matt leaves onto another stopgap.


    It has nothing to do with rather Matt is done or not, even if he has 2-3 good seasons left, he simply does not fit this rosters window.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


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


    Because he's not the guy. He's competing to be the guy. He could be the guy. He's young enough to be the guy for four more years. The FO would be idiots to sign him before seeing if he is the guy.
    "Unless you were in that meeting room and know what we're supposed to do, don't assume!" -T.J.H.
    User avatar
    JohnnyB
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 358
    Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:36 pm


  • warner28 wrote:Like you said the team was not good enough, so who cares if the 38 year old QB might be?

    Lets assume the Cardinals were an up and coming roster, not quite ready to win titles but heading into 2010 the roster looks ready except the 38 year old QB has decided to hang it up.

    Guess what? Now that roster that has been developing and might just be ready to win a title will be taking a few steps back while the team finds its next QB.

    Wouldn't make more sense to find that QB before the team is ready to compete so when it is the QB is not holding it back?


    Lets say Matt is good in 2010, plays all the way through 2012 at a high level (just for the sake of argument), I'd expect this team to truly be ready (if Carroll and Schneider do an excellent job) to compete for titles in 2012 so they'd get 1 shot with Matt, then he retires and now Seattle spends 2013 and 2014 being held back by a developmental QB who by 2015 is ready to play but now several other positions are aging/hitting free agency which can sometimes be a difficult storm to weather.


    That is my fear and I don't see Matt lasting till 2012 much less beyond.


    IMO, the championship window of the roster that Carroll is building will most likely be 2012-2015 maybe extended a couple seasons if they replenish the roster well. I hate the idea of wasting any of those years developing a QB when the rest of the roster is ready which means after Matt leaves onto another stopgap.


    It has nothing to do with rather Matt is done or not, even if he has 2-3 good seasons left, he simply does not fit this rosters window.


    One addition, like maybe Haynesworth, to the defensive line and this team has a shot to go all the way this season (I'll explain how if anyone wants). Add the guy after the season, plus a couple more here or there and they have a great chance the following season. That gives the team a realistic possible three year window while Matt is 36,37, and 38. Plus when Matt's done, a QB can develop on the bench (in other words, in practice) and step right in, like Brady and countless others have.
    "Unless you were in that meeting room and know what we're supposed to do, don't assume!" -T.J.H.
    User avatar
    JohnnyB
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 358
    Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:36 pm


  • volsunghawk wrote:
    ctbullets wrote:
    you may be right about that but then why is hasselbeck still on the team? because they believe he's better than CW right now. i buy the competition thing also but not at QB. my theory is that they brought CW in to be "the guy", "their guy" like holmgren did with hasselbeck. they wanted CW to win the job and thought he would. now they got him and have seen what he has in camp and oops, he's not ready to be the guy or can't be the guy which we all knew coming in. now they know hasselbeck gives them the best chance to win now. like you said, this competition makes no sense. if you brought CW in to be the guy, then you trade matt(too late now) and go with CW. you use this season to see what you have and if you need to draft a QB in '11(we know the answer and could've told them before they wasted the money and picks on CW). ida drafted sanchez last yr and even after that mistake, ida used 14 on clausen this yr. that's just my opinion.


    Actually, they said before minicamps started that there would be competition, but that Hass is in line to be the starting QB. They never said otherwise. They claimed that Whitehurst is what they want in a backup right now. The competition angle allows for the possibility that Whitehurst outperforms Hass in training camp (and I'm fairly sure that they will actually make their judgments based off of all they see in training camp, and not just off of 6 days of minicamp).

    I'll agree with you in one area: If they brought Whitehurst in to definitely be THE guy, then they should have traded Hasselbeck as soon as they found a decent offer. Of course, had they brought Whitehurst in to be THE guy, then it would seem odd for them to give him a 2-year contract. Based off of the facts, it looks as if...

    1. They were convinced that Wallace wasn't someone they could use in any capacity.
    2. They wanted a backup with potential to start.
    3. They aren't ready to jettison the face of the team, but they are preparing for life after his contract is up (at the end of this season).

    I think when you combine all of those factors, then we're looking at drafting a QB in the 2011 draft, guaranteed... how high a pick we use on the QB will be determined by what Whitehurst shows the team throughout this season, both in practice and in real games (assuming trends hold true and Hass misses time to injury).


    everything you said makes perfect sense and i would agree but the trade tells us otherwise. what they traded in picks and the contract they gave him tells us, he was brought in to be the starter and not for 1 yr. thats why the trade doesn't make any sense because matt is still here. the length of the contract told us that they weren't sure if CW would be the guy longterm yet. the fact that hasselbeck wasn't given an extention tells us he's gone after this yr unless he has a pro-bowl yr. he's a lame duck but they're not ready to hand over the keys to CW quite yet. and let me clear something up, matt isn't the face of this franchise anymore. PC is now the face of the seahawks. i agree that it's inevitable we draft a #1 QB this yr. as for them saying matt was starter from beginning, very true and i never believed it for a second. the minute hasselbeck falters by week 5, it will be the quickest hook you ever saw. they feel they owe matt a chance at leading this team but he's not "their guy". they respect him but owe him nothing and have no tie to him. CW was their first major move and they're tied to him. he will be given every opportunity to win the job and he wasn't brought in to be a backup. that's my opinion and i could be wrong. your points are very valid and make alot of sense. but this trade just doesn't add up if CW was brought in to be a backup, i just don't buy it.
    ctbullets
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 18
    Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:18 pm


  • Countless others have stepped right in?

    List them please, I beg you.

    And feel free to tell me the formula for winning this year, better yet email it directly.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


  • warner28 wrote:Countless others have stepped right in?

    List them please, I beg you.

    And feel free to tell me the formula for winning this year, better yet email it directly.


    Let's start with the QBs who did well their very first year starting five games or more in the NFL. All these actually started 10+.

    Kurt Warner himself had a 109.2 rating his first year starting.
    Ken Stabler 88.3
    Roger Staubach 104.8
    Mark Rypien 88.4
    Matt Ryan 87.7
    Tony Romo 95.1
    Ben Roethlisberger 98.1

    So that's just in R,S,T, and W and picking a choosing a few names here and there that I recognized. The exhaustive list would be very long.

    I'll do my formula for the Seahawks challenging for the title this year in a new thread. All the scenarios for why Hasselbeck should be gone assume as a given that a new QB needs a season or two of starting in the NFL before they can be any good, but that just aint so.
    "Unless you were in that meeting room and know what we're supposed to do, don't assume!" -T.J.H.
    User avatar
    JohnnyB
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 358
    Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:36 pm


  • Guarantee the list of guys who struggled is much much much much much much longer.

    Its nice to cherry pick and ignore trends and likelyhoods though, isn't it?


    New QBs do need a season or 2, just because you can pick a handful of guys does not change this.

    Look at Elway, Aikman, Young, Manning (both of them), Rodgers (who got to sit several years), Hasselbeck himself (whom also got to sit several years).

    The list of guys who could not step right in and play is much much longer.


    But whatever, QBs can step right in and lead teams to titles, happens all the time, its actually the expectation, wow, I never knew.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


  • JohnnyB wrote:
    warner28 wrote:Countless others have stepped right in?

    List them please, I beg you.

    And feel free to tell me the formula for winning this year, better yet email it directly.


    Let's start with the QBs who did well their very first year starting five games or more in the NFL. All these actually started 10+.

    Kurt Warner himself had a 109.2 rating his first year starting.
    Ken Stabler 88.3
    Roger Staubach 104.8
    Mark Rypien 88.4
    Matt Ryan 87.7
    Tony Romo 95.1
    Ben Roethlisberger 98.1

    So that's just in R,S,T, and W and picking a choosing a few names here and there that I recognized. The exhaustive list would be very long.

    I'll do my formula for the Seahawks challenging for the title this year in a new thread. All the scenarios for why Hasselbeck should be gone assume as a given that a new QB needs a season or two of starting in the NFL before they can be any good, but that just aint so.


    yeah those guys are exceptions to the rule. QBs take about 2 full years to become good. of the examples you gave of guys that i saw play: romo sat for yrs, roethlisberger had terrible numbers and they were a running team his 1st yr, matt ryan was decent, and warner was a journeyman veteran but was great right away. that is by no means proof of your theory.
    ctbullets
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 18
    Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:18 pm


  • Well its obviously easy to discredit someone else's post. He went out and gave some examples, just like you asked, yet you simply want to dismiss his post, even though it was exactly what you begged of him to do.

    Theres always factors in how and why a QB has success. But many of those examples have as much to do with learning the system, as learning the game speed of the NFL.

    Its actually proven that QB's who don't start in they're 1st season have a higher rate of success. That sounds like a great stat, but it doesn't account for the QB's that were high draft picks because the team they were going to was horrid the previous year and likely needs more than just a QB to succeed.

    I'd provide examples, but you would probably just dismiss them anyway.
    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


  • Countless others was his claim, I can easily count his. Also since when is providing a counter point (which is all I did) discounting a list? You are awful sensitive, did Hasselbeck buy you a ice cream cone at Dairy Queen once or something?

    BTW, I think Warner fails to fit, the guy played professionally for 2 years, sure it was the Arena League but I think that massively helped his development (especially the accuracy which made him so great).

    Not discounting so much as finding the list to be very very small and far from countless.

    If you guys want to believe that QBs can step right in and dominate and that this is anywhere near the norm, feel free. I will continue to live in reality and understand that well it can happen, counting on it is a mistake.



    Also, I understand the 1st year thing, you do realize that I have already stated (about a million times) that if Hasselbeck were starting over a rookie QB (or even a 2nd year QB) it would make perfect sense, Whitehurst is entering his 5th season, he needs to see the field to continue his development, he has done all he can do from the bench. If you weren't going to start him, you should not have traded for him pure and simple.
    Last edited by MARTYREDwarner on Thu May 13, 2010 10:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


  • Countless others was his claim, I can easily count his.


    Um, I only gave those I recognized whose names start with R,S,T or W. By doing so I proved that it is not uncommon for QBs to step right in and do well. I didn't even look in the rest of the alphabet. I'm not going to go through the entire alphabet because there are too many! So it is patently false to presume that the only way the Seahawks can contend in the future is by planning for a QB to start and fail to play well for a year or two before he can do well. So it is false that the team has to start playing the QB now who they expect to be the guy five years from now. Hasselbeck can play for four more years. The next guy can step right in after that.
    "Unless you were in that meeting room and know what we're supposed to do, don't assume!" -T.J.H.
    User avatar
    JohnnyB
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 358
    Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:36 pm


  • JohnnyB wrote:
    Countless others was his claim, I can easily count his.


    Um, I only gave those I recognized whose names start with R,S,T or W. By doing so I proved that it is not uncommon for QBs to step right in and do well. I didn't even look in the rest of the alphabet. I'm not going to go through the entire alphabet because there are too many! So it is patently false to presume that the only way the Seahawks can contend in the future is by planning for a QB to start and fail to play well for a year or two before he can do well. So it is false that the team has to start playing the QB now who they expect to be the guy five years from now. Hasselbeck can play for four more years. The next guy can step right in after that.


    We aren't going to agree on this, you believe they can step right in, I believe there will be a drop off.

    Of course you believe Matt can play 4 more years, I'd have to be high to even consider that.


    Drop offs are the norm, of course all you used was QB rating.

    What about won/loss record compared to previous year? How bout playoff wins and Super Bowl appearances in that first year?

    Some guys have stepped right in, no doubt, I never said it never happened, its not the norm however. What percentage do you think step right in and improve/maintain the team? I think its less than 25% (based on perception), your opinion?

    There is more to a QB than their rating IMO.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


  • Pete has preached the credo of competition, and if he wants to truly be bought into by the players, he better play the guy who wins the job. Not the guy he brought in, not the incumbent, but the guy who earns the reps. If he preaches competition to his players, then starts a qb who did not earn the job, he will be seen as a hypocrite by veterans especially.

    I am pretty sure that Carroll and Schneider understand that Whitehurst is a low cost (compared to selecting a first rounder) homerun swing that has a high probability of swing and miss. Are they going to stake their future on making sure he sees the field to begin the season? Not likely. Hass will probably be the day 1 starter, just because he will look better in camp and pre-season, and if he stinks it up, Whitehurst will get his chance. And if Charlie stinks it up for an extended slide of multiple games, Hass will see the field again. Or even Teel or Reilly.

    When Pete says they brought Whitehurst in to compete for the job, I believe him. No decision has been made yet. We may even see 3 different quarterbacks start pre-season games.
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 11663
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


  • romo sat for yrs,


    Romo sat for however long he sat, then, in his first year starting he did well. Many Many Many QBs have done the same. It refutes the claim that he needed to start and play a lot for a year or two before he could play well. Yeah, the majority probably get better after starting for a year or two (more like 65%-45%), but it can happen either way. You don't plan your entire team's future around a type of losing and failure that doesn't even have to happen.

    Not to mention, a smart coach doesn't need Pro Bowl play from the QB to contend. The Jets contended and Sanchez had a QB rating in the sixties. So it would be stupid to ship off a very good QB like Hasselbeck because of some speculative type of failure that doesn't have to happen. Whitehurst is a great backup plan, just like Scottemojo said. Lets give the team as many different ways to succeed as we can and go with the one that's working.
    "Unless you were in that meeting room and know what we're supposed to do, don't assume!" -T.J.H.
    User avatar
    JohnnyB
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 358
    Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:36 pm


  • Scottemojo wrote:Pete has preached the credo of competition, and if he wants to truly be bought into by the players, he better play the guy who wins the job. Not the guy he brought in, not the incumbent, but the guy who earns the reps. If he preaches competition to his players, then starts a qb who did not earn the job, he will be seen as a hypocrite by veterans especially.

    I am pretty sure that Carroll and Schneider understand that Whitehurst is a low cost (compared to selecting a first rounder) homerun swing that has a high probability of swing and miss. Are they going to stake their future on making sure he sees the field to begin the season? Not likely. Hass will probably be the day 1 starter, just because he will look better in camp and pre-season, and if he stinks it up, Whitehurst will get his chance. And if Charlie stinks it up for an extended slide of multiple games, Hass will see the field again. Or even Teel or Reilly.

    When Pete says they brought Whitehurst in to compete for the job, I believe him. No decision has been made yet. We may even see 3 different quarterbacks start pre-season games.


    :13: to the fullest extent. And if they all suck we go and draft one, which i'm personally all for.
    Image
    3elieve
    User avatar
    Throwdown
    * NET Baller *
     
    Posts: 19292
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:02 am
    Location: Graham, WA


  • Preach competition all you want, if Whitehurst busts and they wait till 2011 to find that out (passing on options in the 2011 draft) this franchise is set back dramatically.

    If they draft someone in 2011 and Whitehurst is a stud, they wasted massive resources.


    Believe it or not (and I know lobos and johnny won't), I don't hate Matt, I just can't wrap my head around the Whitehurst deal if we aren't going to find out what he has in 2010 (counting on him beating Matt out or getting hurt is a foolish way of doing this IMO). Charlie needs to play unless they truly did just trade for a back up in which case they wasted massive resources for a back up when they could have just signed Derek Anderson.

    I don't care how many ways people try to justify the move, it only makes sense if he plays. I don't know why thinking that forces some to become so defensive and put me in the "Hasselbeck hater" camp but so be it.

    If Matt is your guy, he needs to be your guy for the next few seasons at a minimum and letting him hit free agency (in such a case) makes no sense whatsoever. If you believe in Matt, you extend him now, not after this season.


    I guess I am just stunned (given how much I like everything else they have done) at how they have handled the most important position on the roster.

    They seem to be making moves for the long term but then they sit their with QBs that are only planned for the short term. Its just odd.


    Johnny, on the Sanchez thing, you say they coached around him (true, I agree), what did it get them? A 9-7 record, a wildcard berth, and a failed playoff run. Is that what we are building for? I personally don't feel 9-7 and getting hot in the postseason to be a sound strategy, more like counting on luck (both to get into the postseason at 9-7 and to than win 2 road playoff games are something you can't count on doing on a regular basis).

    Don't know about you but I want 12-4, division titles, bye weeks, and Super Bowls.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


  • If they draft someone in 2011 and Whitehurst is a stud, they wasted massive resources.

    Doesn't Schneider (and his mentor Wolf) preach that quarterbacks are stockable assets, meaning that you can never have enough good ones? They seem to have a philosophy that good quarterbacks, even parked on the bench, are an excellent way to store future draft picks, at least more so than any other position on the field. A commodity of sorts.

    I agree, Whitie will see the field in 2010. Just not to start the season, unless he kicks Matt's ass in camp and pre-season, which I think is unlikely.
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 11663
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


  • Sure, drafting a QB in rounds 2-7 is a stockable asset. How many times did Wolf draft QBs in round 1?

    Drafting a QB in the top 15 means passing on another position and you will not recoup that value in a trade.


    That is what I am talking about, passing on a 1st round QB. If they just plan to give Charlie the job in 2011 and take a QB in round 4, fine. But they damn well better be right about Charlie (or get lucky with that 4th round pick) otherwise the franchise be screwed.
    Last edited by MARTYREDwarner on Thu May 13, 2010 11:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


  • Fanboy,

    I advocated the current approach to the QB position before Carroll/Schneider were even hired (in other forums) so maybe that's why I understand it. Instead of betting the whole farm on one guy, a high draft pick QB like JaMarcus Russell, you accumulate lower risk guys and let them compete. Instead of being taken down for five years like the Raiders were, you get high upside, low downside guys like Whitehurst, see if they pan out and cut them if they don't. If you happen to accumulate too many good QBs you trade them for high draft picks.

    Don't know about you but I want 12-4, division titles, bye weeks, and Super Bowls.


    The Jets were strong enough to win the Super Bowl. Anyone watching them saw how close they came. That's all you can ask from your team. Contending for the title. '05 was a successful year for the Seahawks. If we would have had a few more like that, they probably would have won the Super Bowl. The point is that, again, there are many different formulas for contending. Too many people get caught up in one formula and then tear their own team a new one when they don't follow it. That's misguided.
    "Unless you were in that meeting room and know what we're supposed to do, don't assume!" -T.J.H.
    User avatar
    JohnnyB
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 358
    Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:36 pm


  • What formula did the Jets use? Didn't they spend a 1st on a QB?

    The Jets barely made the playoffs, how well they did in the playoffs does not demonstrate a formula, it took luck just to have the chance to make the run (only about 25% of 9 win teams even make the playoffs), I ain't counting on those odds, you can, I ain't.


    If you want to let a bunch of guys compete fine, it will still take a few years to find the guy.

    Johnny, I think you are counting on lightning in the bottle way too much.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


  • What formula did the Jets use? Didn't they spend a 1st on a QB?


    Yeah, and they tossed him right in without any years sitting on the bench. Why? Because they had spent all their resources on other positions and the team was strong enough to contend without needing a Pro Bowl QB.

    Contention at the end of the season is what you want in the NFL. Many teams start the season weakly and get better. That was the Jets. The true test of a team's real strength is how they play against other playoff teams. The Jets definitely proved themselves in that regard. I'll take their level of play in the last playoffs every season. Wouldn't you?

    Lightning in a bottle? That's what you need when you bank everything on one specific way of doing things. Instead, why not give your team twenty different ways to succeed? Why bank everything on one player like the Raiders did? There's better ways.
    "Unless you were in that meeting room and know what we're supposed to do, don't assume!" -T.J.H.
    User avatar
    JohnnyB
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 358
    Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:36 pm


  • Sorry but 9-7 is not a formula for success, it just isn't.

    Would I take what they did in the playoffs? Sure.

    The problem? 3 out of 4 years, they would not have even gotten that chance. That is a massive problem.


    I have no desire to bank on one player, I'd say its the Hasselbeck camp that is banking on 1 player, Matt needs to return to 2007 form for this team to have a chance, that is the very definition of banking on 1 player. Worst of all even with him playing that well this is probably an 8 to 9 win team so in addition to banking on that one player you are banking on a 1 in 4 shot (at best) of even making the playoffs, then you are banking on getting really hot in the playoffs.

    I am recognizing that the odds of a Super Bowl title in 2010 are long (at best) and while I am not punting the season I am going to try to compete while also finding the answers for 2011 and beyond. Again as I have said before if you believe in Matt you should already be trying to sign him to an extension, since they have not done this I can only assume that even the front office is questioning his long term effectiveness. Why would you go into a season trying to catch lightning in the bottle with a player that you are unsure will even re-gain his form?

    It makes no sense to me, sorry it just doesn't. And it has nothing to do with hating Matt Hasselbeck, its just an odd way to go about roster construction.


    I'd have traded Matt for a 3rd (although I still don't buy that such a deal was offered but it is rumored), gone with Whitehurst, probably drafted Clausen or Tebow (or some other QB/kept Teel if I liked neither), and added another youngish veteran (probably jumped into the Campbell sweepstakes after Washington added McNabb), let those 3 compete for the job and done my best to try to win in 2010 and beyond.

    I just gave myself 3 chances to find my long term answer and personally do not feel that such a move would have been giving up on 2010 (especially if you made the move for Campbell), lightning in the bottle could still hit with 1 of those 3 options.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


  • I'd have traded Matt for a 3rd (although I still don't buy that such a deal was offered but it is rumored), gone with Whitehurst, probably drafted Clausen or Tebow


    Since you certainly couldn't have counted on getting either of them in the second round, you would have had to use at least the 14 pick. This means that the QB would have had a huge contract. No way are you going to have any serious competition for the position without this high draft pick QB getting many many more opportunities than anyone else to start and play. You just can't invest those huge dollars (30-50 million) for a guy sitting on the bench unless there really is going to be no salary cap. So you don't really have 3 chances, you can't afford Campbell and the high draft pick QB either pans out or loses you a lot of games, while costing you valuable cap dollars you could have used on making the rest of the team stronger.
    "Unless you were in that meeting room and know what we're supposed to do, don't assume!" -T.J.H.
    User avatar
    JohnnyB
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 358
    Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:36 pm


  • OK, lets do it Warners way,

    We start CW and make Matt the back up. Now per your formula, we need for CW to either do very good or very bad, otherwise you don't know what you have and you are sure to lose Matt.

    So now its the 2011 offseaon, you won 6 games and Charlie had an OK year, nothing spectacular, just OK, Not bad, Just OK. This by the way is the most likely scenario.
    Now what do you do?

    So what if CW looks terrible, but the defense and running game, combined with a weak schedule muster you up, 6 or 7 wins?

    Matts gone, CW is a loss, and you don't have a top 10 pick. What do you do? This scenario (IMO) has the highest percentage of locking us into mediocrity for years to come.

    You can bet, the fans would be screaming for Pete and Johns head.

    What if Pete and John don't believe 35 is to old to play QB and like many here, question if Matt (with the proper tools and good coaching) still has some pro bowl level skills still left in the tank?

    I could see not going after an extension just yet, as you want to see him perform in your system with better weapons.
    I could also still see bringing in Charlie to 1) be competition for Matt 2) be a viable back up if you don't believe Wallace or any other QB that was available in FA to be and you think Charlie may have the tools to develop.

    Its a pretty rare scenario, like you have said, to be able to make a true assessment of a QB in 1 year, unless they are either lights out or horrid. So now you have sunk yourself into pit. Should you go after the best available QB? If you do, should he be the immediate starter? Do you keep Charlie on if you determined he is not going to be able to become a viable back up?

    Worms I tell you, a big ol can of worms.
    Last edited by lostlobos on Thu May 13, 2010 11:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
    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


  • JohnnyB wrote:
    I'd have traded Matt for a 3rd (although I still don't buy that such a deal was offered but it is rumored), gone with Whitehurst, probably drafted Clausen or Tebow


    Since you certainly couldn't have counted on getting either of them in the second round, you would have had to use at least the 14 pick. This means that the QB would have had a huge contract. No way are you going to have any serious competition for the position without this high draft pick QB getting many many more opportunities than anyone else to start and play. You just can't invest those huge dollars (30-50 million) for a guy sitting on the bench unless there really is going to be no salary cap. So you don't really have 3 chances, you can't afford Campbell and the high draft pick QB either pans out or loses you a lot of games, while costing you valuable cap dollars you could have used on making the rest of the team stronger.


    While of course Clausen/Tebow are you long term solution (at least that is the plan) but you can sit them early (pick 14 would not have been 30-50 million). Freeman got 26 million last year as a QB in the teens over 5 years (36 million with incentives), not sure how much was guaranteed but hardly a franchise killing investment.


    You can do both, teams just are rarely willing, most teams (even in a cap years) have 5-6 million of wiggle room, few are truly right against the cap (this becomes especially easy but cutting some dead weight this offseason). It could have been done.


    Campbell would have been more of a "wow, this guy is available for so little, lets get him" move.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


  • lobos,

    First off, that would not have been my way, that is just the position Carroll and Schneider have put themselves in. I would have handled the QB position much much differently (as I described above) but this is where we are so now you have to ask, what is the best long term scenario?

    If they believe its Matt, extend him.

    If they believe its Charlie, play him.


    If they believe its neither, what they hell are they doing? Waiting till the 2011 draft? Are they in the "lose for Locker" camp?


    Coaches often have to take a leap of faith at QB, these guys are hedging their bets and leaving the team with no long term options, that is why I am so bothered.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


PreviousNext


It is currently Thu Nov 27, 2014 8:19 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE ARCHIVES ]




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests