Objective look at Hasselbeck

A collection of NET's best and most memorable threads. Predictions, debates, laughs, and X's & O's. Rating: PG to NC-17
Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:11 am
  • kidhawk wrote:Whitehurst is not now, never has been, and never will be the answer at qb..


    The very same thing was once said about Favre, Warner, Brady and even Hasselbeck... And to hear some here tell it they are ALL Hall of Famers. Now I don't pretend to know the truth about Whitehurst (fortunately I have you to tell me). But I do know Hass has hurt more than helped this team with his play in the last year-at least-and I want to move on.
    "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


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:23 am
  • bestfightstory wrote:
    kidhawk wrote:Whitehurst is not now, never has been, and never will be the answer at qb..


    The very same thing was once said about Favre, Warner, Brady and even Hasselbeck... And to hear some here tell it they are ALL Hall of Famers. Now I don't pretend to know the truth about Whitehurst (fortunately I have you to tell me). But I do know Hass has hurt more than helped this team with his play in the last year-at least-and I want to move on.


    And thankfully we have PC as coach who knows better then you, of that I'm sure, and still knows that Hasselbeck is the best qb on this team and the only one to play if you are trying to win now.
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 13451
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:35 am
  • kidhawk wrote:
    bestfightstory wrote:
    kidhawk wrote:Whitehurst is not now, never has been, and never will be the answer at qb..


    The very same thing was once said about Favre, Warner, Brady and even Hasselbeck... And to hear some here tell it they are ALL Hall of Famers. Now I don't pretend to know the truth about Whitehurst (fortunately I have you to tell me). But I do know Hass has hurt more than helped this team with his play in the last year-at least-and I want to move on.


    And thankfully we have PC as coach who knows better then you, of that I'm sure, and still knows that Hasselbeck is the best qb on this team and the only one to play if you are trying to win now.

    Yep, coaches are never wrong.

    I don't know why we even went to Carroll in the first place since Jim Mora knows more than all of us.
    User avatar
    Rat
    * NET Cynic *
     
    Posts: 3519
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:42 pm
    Location: St. Louis, MO


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:40 am
  • Until Whitey gets time in real games, I can't beleive that any of US here have any idea of his worthyness as a starter. It's obvious that the coaches think Matt is better, and thats from his experience and reads.

    Matt had tremendous growing pains, and the same can be said for any QB.

    Even PC doesn't know what Whitey can really accomplish, because there is no record of it.

    I'm sure he feels he owes it to the fans and organization to "win now" and Matt is the best choice, To me if Hass can't get something good going by the Bye week, put Whitey in and lets take a look.
    Image

    R.I.P. Brother Les, I'll always know you as Pithy Radish.
    User avatar
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 23739
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm
    Location: NFL WORLD CHAMPIONS 2013-2014


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:43 am
  • I don't think we'll see Whitehurst before the bye week, but not because of Matt's play. I have a feeling that Bates is still getting Whitehurst a little more comfortable with the playbook and that by about week 6 when he's had time to digest, they'll throw him into the fray and see what they have.
    Super Bowl Champions XVLIII

    RIP Radish: Check your PMs. Upper right corner.
    User avatar
    Sarlacc83
    * NET Philistine *
     
    Posts: 15228
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:02 am
    Location: Portland, OR


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:46 am
  • What is it with all this "let's see what he's got" bs? We have a shot at the worst division in football. Now do we seem to be superbowl contenters? No we don't, but I'd argue, neither did Arizona the year they went. As long as we have a shot at the playoffs we best be playing the players that give us out best shot at winning. Whitehurst didn't show anything in the preseason to show me he was a better option than matt and it's not like he is a rookie, he's been practicing at an NFL level for 4 years now. Hasselbeck is the man until we have no shot at the playoffs. After that, I really don't care who starts
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 13451
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 9:53 am
  • It's not BS Kidhawk, we all know Matt is done here, most likely after this year.

    The NFL is all about passing, we have got to be thinking of the future as well as the present. I personally don't see this team, this year, as making any dent in a playoff run, and I would rather think long term.

    hell, we have Tate (rookie) Butler (year 2), Williams (basically an experienced rookie) to build with in the receiving corps. We have to be able to win on the road, and history has shown us it is not getting done now, so why not at least entertain the thought?
    Image

    R.I.P. Brother Les, I'll always know you as Pithy Radish.
    User avatar
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 23739
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm
    Location: NFL WORLD CHAMPIONS 2013-2014


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 10:06 am
  • I wonder what the NFL record is for "most interceptions thrown in opening possession of consecutive games by a veteran starting NFL quarterback with Super Bowl experience and a team captain".....
    "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


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 10:26 am
  • It is BS because football is a game of winning while you build. There is no reason why we can't succeed with a playoff berth in carroll's first season. Playing playoff games with the younger talent we have now is tenfold better for this team then getting Whitehurst reps on gameday. I am so glad the team isn't playing with the mentality some of the so-called fans have that it's ok to lose now as long as it means we'll win someday. I want to see my team competing at the highest level possible each and every week, that is what we pay to see. Putting in the second best qb on the team is not how you win games.
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 13451
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 10:41 am
  • Hawk Strap wrote:
    zhawk wrote:i don't disagree that he had a horrible day.... i also don't expect him to have another game like that. it felt like he was trying to make up for his mistakes and just made it worse


    THAT is THE problem with Matt Hasselbeck


    I know I'm new here, but QFT. Hasselbeck plays as if he could just complete one of those lobs down the sideline, Al Harris' interception would be wiped off of the memory banks and he could be the hero on ESPN.
    User avatar
    Everett Hawk
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 100
    Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 10:27 am
    Location: Everett, WA


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 10:45 am
  • kidhawk wrote:It is BS because football is a game of winning while you build. There is no reason why we can't succeed with a playoff berth in carroll's first season. Playing playoff games with the younger talent we have now is tenfold better for this team then getting Whitehurst reps on gameday. I am so glad the team isn't playing with the mentality some of the so-called fans have that it's ok to lose now as long as it means we'll win someday. I want to see my team competing at the highest level possible each and every week, that is what we pay to see. Putting in the second best qb on the team is not how you win games.


    I with ya on this one.

    I love the way some fans give it the old, "I've always liked Hass..." but forget they've been after his head for the last three years! That's right, the same "fans" who screamed for Saint Seneca to save us. "Hey, Seneca can jump over tall buildings, he gives us more options, etc., etc., etc." How many times have we heard that line?

    But ya know what? IIRC, pehawk was the only one of those fans, who actually came back and 'fessed up.
    If you're walking on thin ice, you might as well dance.................................................Mom
    User avatar
    LymonHawk
    * El Primo *
    * El Primo *
     
    Posts: 5559
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Skagit County, WA


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 10:57 am
  • Largent80 wrote:It's not BS Kidhawk, we all know Matt is done here, most likely after this year.

    The NFL is all about passing, we have got to be thinking of the future as well as the present. I personally don't see this team, this year, as making any dent in a playoff run, and I would rather think long term.

    hell, we have Tate (rookie) Butler (year 2), Williams (basically an experienced rookie) to build with in the receiving corps. We have to be able to win on the road, and history has shown us it is not getting done now, so why not at least entertain the thought?


    In the Broncos game Hasselbeck threw numerous strong and accurate passes. Why completely ignore those, as if they simply didn't happen? Why focus in on soft touch passes that were left short, ignoring his obvious attempt to loft a ball over defenders which requires a touch pass instead of putting heat on it? "Lessee, he left it short. Umm...His arm is gone! His arm it gone!" Why completely forget the Pro Bowl level performance a mere seven days earlier during which he was close to as accurate and consistent as it gets in the NFL, again with plenty of zip on the ball when required?

    Why do all of you take your hatred of losing out on the easiest target instead of looking objectively at what is actually going on? Matt is a great QB right now and probably will be for three or four more years, plenty of time to develop the team 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


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 11:12 am
  • JohnnyB wrote: Matt is a great QB right now and probably will be for three or four more years, plenty of time to develop the team around him.


    Not in this offense. Matt is a terrible fit. Matt may (a huge may), be able to have a decent two or three more years left in a offense like Holmy's were arm strength isn't necessary.

    And do you really think that Carroll and Schnieder plan on developing this very young offense around a 35 year old Hass, who is a terrible fit for Bate's system? I sure don't, and if they did, I'm pretty sure Matt's contract would have been extended by now. Why risk letting him hit free agency when you already know he's the guy you want behind center for the next four years?
    I hate Tim Ruskell.
    User avatar
    Trrrroy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2853
    Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:24 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 11:24 am
  • Trrrroy wrote:
    JohnnyB wrote: Matt is a great QB right now and probably will be for three or four more years, plenty of time to develop the team around him.


    Not in this offense. Matt is a terrible fit. Matt may (a huge may), be able to have a decent two or three more years left in a offense like Holmy's were arm strength isn't necessary.

    And do you really think that Carroll and Schnieder plan on developing this very young offense around a 35 year old Hass, who is a terrible fit for Bate's system? I sure don't, and if they did, I'm pretty sure Matt's contract would have been extended by now. Why risk letting him hit free agency when you already know he's the guy you want behind center for the next four years?


    You say he's "a terrible fit" yet you provide no reason. You ignore seven days ago when he was a perfect fit and proved it. And how do you know they haven't already tried to resign him? Hass and his agent would be idiots to sign until Hasselbeck proves how good he can consistently be in this offense. By the way, he will do just that and the Seahawks will make the playoffs and all those who can't see how good he is will be eating crow.
    "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


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 11:30 am
  • This thread is utterly useless, you got a handful of people on one side, saying Hass is good to great, you have the others that don't think he is worth a shit anymore, and others like me that realize the future is where we are headed and not the present or past.

    Later Gators
    Image

    R.I.P. Brother Les, I'll always know you as Pithy Radish.
    User avatar
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 23739
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm
    Location: NFL WORLD CHAMPIONS 2013-2014


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 11:33 am
  • JohnnyB wrote:
    Largent80 wrote:It's not BS Kidhawk, we all know Matt is done here, most likely after this year.

    The NFL is all about passing, we have got to be thinking of the future as well as the present. I personally don't see this team, this year, as making any dent in a playoff run, and I would rather think long term.

    hell, we have Tate (rookie) Butler (year 2), Williams (basically an experienced rookie) to build with in the receiving corps. We have to be able to win on the road, and history has shown us it is not getting done now, so why not at least entertain the thought?


    In the Broncos game Hasselbeck threw numerous strong and accurate passes. Why completely ignore those, as if they simply didn't happen? Why focus in on soft touch passes that were left short, ignoring his obvious attempt to loft a ball over defenders which requires a touch pass instead of putting heat on it? "Lessee, he left it short. Umm...His arm is gone! His arm it gone!" Why completely forget the Pro Bowl level performance a mere seven days earlier during which he was close to as accurate and consistent as it gets in the NFL, again with plenty of zip on the ball when required?

    Why do all of you take your hatred of losing out on the easiest target instead of looking objectively at what is actually going on? Matt is a great QB right now and probably will be for three or four more years, plenty of time to develop the team around him.
    First off, can the hatred crap. This isn't an emotional analysis, it's not about hate.

    Second, I like how you say we should look objectively at what is actually going on and in the next breathe say Matt is a great QB right now.

    Great QB's don't throw 13 INTs in 5 games. If he keeps this pace up, he'll throw 40 INTs in one season. NO QB has ever done that. You know why? He gets BENCHED.
    Richard Sherman doesn't just wanna get in your head, he wants to build a vacation home there.

    R. Sherman: "I don't want to be an island. I want to be a tourist attraction. You come, I take your money & you go."
    User avatar
    SalishHawkFan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4681
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:39 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 11:48 am
  • JohnnyB wrote:You say he's "a terrible fit" yet you provide no reason.


    He's a terrible fit because he has a terrible arm. Bates offense is catered to guys with good arms. All the QB's brought in this year had good arms. Cutler, who Bates called the plays for in Denver had a good arm. Besides, If Hass who they want to mold thier QB's after, they would have picked up a guys a lot more like him, and a lot less like Whitehurst and Losman.
    I hate Tim Ruskell.
    User avatar
    Trrrroy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2853
    Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:24 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 11:57 am
  • SalishHawkFan wrote:
    JohnnyB wrote:
    Largent80 wrote:It's not BS Kidhawk, we all know Matt is done here, most likely after this year.

    The NFL is all about passing, we have got to be thinking of the future as well as the present. I personally don't see this team, this year, as making any dent in a playoff run, and I would rather think long term.

    hell, we have Tate (rookie) Butler (year 2), Williams (basically an experienced rookie) to build with in the receiving corps. We have to be able to win on the road, and history has shown us it is not getting done now, so why not at least entertain the thought?


    In the Broncos game Hasselbeck threw numerous strong and accurate passes. Why completely ignore those, as if they simply didn't happen? Why focus in on soft touch passes that were left short, ignoring his obvious attempt to loft a ball over defenders which requires a touch pass instead of putting heat on it? "Lessee, he left it short. Umm...His arm is gone! His arm it gone!" Why completely forget the Pro Bowl level performance a mere seven days earlier during which he was close to as accurate and consistent as it gets in the NFL, again with plenty of zip on the ball when required?

    Why do all of you take your hatred of losing out on the easiest target instead of looking objectively at what is actually going on? Matt is a great QB right now and probably will be for three or four more years, plenty of time to develop the team around him.
    First off, can the hatred crap. This isn't an emotional analysis, it's not about hate.

    Second, I like how you say we should look objectively at what is actually going on and in the next breathe say Matt is a great QB right now.

    Great QB's don't throw 13 INTs in 5 games. If he keeps this pace up, he'll throw 40 INTs in one season. NO QB has ever done that. You know why? He gets BENCHED.


    Uh, yeah, great QBs do go through periods of bad play. Not just some of them. All of them. 13 INTs in 5 games? I guarantee you at least a dozen Pro Bowl QBs have amassed such stats and worse. Start with Favre and go from there. That's why I say emotions have to be involved. I've seen both Mannings, Brees, I mean you name it, throw away games repeatedly and go through stretches of games where they are inaccurate. Emotions cause people to focus in too closely and magnify what they are looking at out of proportion because they are looking for who to blame. Then they miss the big picture.

    Now this is all just conjecture on my part. Maybe I'm the one stuck in an emotional out of proportion view. I'm a big fan too. But if so then there has to be a reason Hass is bad besides him going through short stretches of bad play because that happens to the best of QBs. If the defense would have played better Hass would have had more chances and the Seahawks could easily have won.
    "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


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 12:07 pm
  • Trrrroy wrote:
    JohnnyB wrote:You say he's "a terrible fit" yet you provide no reason.


    He's a terrible fit because he has a terrible arm. Bates offense is catered to guys with good arms. All the QB's brought in this year had good arms. Cutler, who Bates called the plays for in Denver had a good arm. Besides, If Hass who they want to mold thier QB's after, they would have picked up a guys a lot more like him, and a lot less like Whitehurst and Losman.


    This is a huge myth totally unsupported by what we can all see in every game. Two days ago he threw at least three passes that required major zip to complete. He zip and they were completed. Same the previous week. You don't see him throwing a majority of rifle passes because you can't throw those over defenders as easily. What Bates requires is *accuracy.* Hasselbeck has that in spades.
    "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


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 12:27 pm
  • you guys do realize that without Andrews' holding penalty, the pick on the opening drive never happens, and who knows how the game goes after that.

    just checking. :th2thumbs:
    Image
    User avatar
    muxpux
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2787
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:26 pm
    Location: Longview, WA


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 12:31 pm
  • muxpux wrote:you guys do realize that without Andrews' holding penalty, the pick on the opening drive never happens, and who knows how the game goes after that.

    just checking. :th2thumbs:


    And without the trade for Andrews he wouldnt have been here to hold.
    And without losing Hutch our line might still be good.
    And we can go on and on, but regardless the interception did happen and it was a bad play.

    Personally i think Matt will still be good for us this year, we shall see.
    Image
    User avatar
    JSeahawks
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 18560
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:35 pm
    Location: Milwaukie, Oregon


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 12:35 pm
  • muxpux wrote:you guys do realize that without Andrews' holding penalty, the pick on the opening drive never happens, and who knows how the game goes after that.

    just checking. :th2thumbs:



    This is one of my favorites.

    So because someone else did something dumb (and it was Locklear that held not Andrews) the veteran captain of the team is excused when he makes an even bigger blunder (and that int is much worse than the hold)?

    I just don't get that line of reasoning.


    Matt should be the calming force that keeps the offense going after a penalty, that is what captains do, not throw a joke of a ball for a pick on the next play.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 12:43 pm
  • warner28 wrote:
    muxpux wrote:you guys do realize that without Andrews' holding penalty, the pick on the opening drive never happens, and who knows how the game goes after that.

    just checking. :th2thumbs:



    This is one of my favorites.

    So because someone else did something dumb (and it was Locklear that held not Andrews) the veteran captain of the team is excused when he makes an even bigger blunder (and that int is much worse than the hold)?

    I just don't get that line of reasoning.


    Matt should be the calming force that keeps the offense going after a penalty, that is what captains do, not throw a joke of a ball for a pick on the next play.



    Exactly. At that point in the game the Denver crowd was silent. Matt had completed several very nice third down completions and drove us into scoring position. A 3-spot on the board would have looked nice at that stage.

    Instead, we get the second opening drive interception in as many games.
    "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


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 1:09 pm
  • Whitehurst will be starting on October 24th against Arizona at the latest.
    User avatar
    iigakusei
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 872
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 6:14 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 3:36 pm
  • JohnnyB wrote:This is a huge myth totally unsupported by what we can all see in every game.


    C'mon Johnny, even the staunchest Hass supporters recognize that he has a weak arm. If you don't believe me, look at tape of Hass throwing a 50 yard pass, then look at any other QB with a legit arm do that same pass, be it Whitehurst, Losman, Flacco, either one of the Manning bros, Brees.... heck, even Seneca had a better deep pass.

    What Bates requires is *accuracy.* Hasselbeck has that in spades.


    Well duh. What offensive scheme doesn't require accuracy?

    Seriously, if Hass was a perfect fit for this offense, then why have they been bringing in his polar opposites in Whitehurst and Losman? Why not bring in guys that are in Hass' mold?
    I hate Tim Ruskell.
    User avatar
    Trrrroy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2853
    Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:24 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 3:49 pm
  • JohnnyB wrote:This is a huge myth totally unsupported by what we can all see in every game.


    If you're talking about distance, I must point out that "throwing deep" doesn't just mean being able to get the ball 50 yards downfield. We've seen Hasselbeck do that, and I've seen high school girls do it too. Throwing deep is the ability to get the ball downfield quickly and powerfully in such a way that it doesn't float for an hour and give DB's time to react to it.

    A "deep ball" is not the hanging-for-a-million-years, off-the-top-of-the-TV-screen, pretty-pretty-beautiful-happy-flower-children rainbow pass that Matt usually throws, the kind that requires a WR to completely beat coverage or else the DB will turn around, idly pick his nose, and then casually pull the ball out of the air. A real deep ball is the freakin' BULLET that Drew Brees throws that slices between double coverage and that doesn't need a ton of height because DB's don't even have time to see it coming. THAT'S a damn deep ball. And by that definition, Matt has never thrown a deep ball in his life.

    What Bates requires is *accuracy.* Hasselbeck has that in spades.


    He used to have that in spades, sure. But it's getting worse and worse as time goes on. He's missing Carlson like a disease now, and I'm noticing that WR's are having to go UP for more and more of his passes, instead of them coming straight to the numbers on their jerseys.
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!

    Follow me on Twitter at @17power
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 11270
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 3:53 pm
  • LOL at BULLET
    Image

    R.I.P. Brother Les, I'll always know you as Pithy Radish.
    User avatar
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 23739
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm
    Location: NFL WORLD CHAMPIONS 2013-2014


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 4:27 pm
  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    JohnnyB wrote:This is a huge myth totally unsupported by what we can all see in every game.


    If you're talking about distance, I must point out that "throwing deep" doesn't just mean being able to get the ball 50 yards downfield. We've seen Hasselbeck do that, and I've seen high school girls do it too. Throwing deep is the ability to get the ball downfield quickly and powerfully in such a way that it doesn't float for an hour and give DB's time to react to it.

    A "deep ball" is not the hanging-for-a-million-years, off-the-top-of-the-TV-screen, pretty-pretty-beautiful-happy-flower-children rainbow pass that Matt usually throws, the kind that requires a WR to completely beat coverage or else the DB will turn around, idly pick his nose, and then casually pull the ball out of the air. A real deep ball is the freakin' BULLET that Drew Brees throws that slices between double coverage and that doesn't need a ton of height because DB's don't even have time to see it coming. THAT'S a damn deep ball. And by that definition, Matt has never thrown a deep ball in his life.

    What Bates requires is *accuracy.* Hasselbeck has that in spades.


    He used to have that in spades, sure. But it's getting worse and worse as time goes on. He's missing Carlson like a disease now, and I'm noticing that WR's are having to go UP for more and more of his passes, instead of them coming straight to the numbers on their jerseys.


    Sheesh. He's not getting any worse at all. It's amazing that the entire SF game (except for his one interception) is entirely erased from your memory, along with all the completed passes and virtual unstoppable offense in the Denver game. Selective thinking, IMHO. The result is you are unable to see how good this team (including the QB) actually is. You can't see that this team has a very real chance of making the playoffs this season, with the only remaining big question mark being the pass rush by our defense. But you'll see soon enough.

    You heard it here first!! :)
    "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


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 4:46 pm
  • Trrrroy wrote:
    JohnnyB wrote:This is a huge myth totally unsupported by what we can all see in every game.


    C'mon Johnny, even the staunchest Hass supporters recognize that he has a weak arm. If you don't believe me, look at tape of Hass throwing a 50 yard pass, then look at any other QB with a legit arm do that same pass, be it Whitehurst, Losman, Flacco, either one of the Manning bros, Brees.... heck, even Seneca had a better deep pass.


    You're getting confused because you clipped out what I was calling a huge myth. Here is is again:

    He's a terrible fit because he has a terrible arm.


    He doesn't have a terrible arm. His arm strength is just as good as when the Seahawks won the Super Bowl (on the field). His arm strength is just as good as some of the best QBs who ever played the game, like Montana, Staubach, Unitas, and Tarkenton. That doesn't mean Hasselbeck is a strong armed QB. But no offense actually needs a strong armed QB. It can be an advantage in some situations, but it's accuracy that matters far more. Hasselbeck has more than enough of that to take this team all the way with a good enough team 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


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 5:00 pm
  • Donk70 wrote:His passes lacked zip and he underthrew alot. I question his going deep on 4th and 2.

    UMMMMM Yeah. why the hell do you go to the back of the endzone on 4th and 3. especially to Deion Branch
    hawksman53
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 814
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 11:27 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 5:01 pm
  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    JohnnyB wrote:He used to have that in spades, sure. But it's getting worse and worse as time goes on. He's missing Carlson like a disease now, and I'm noticing that WR's are having to go UP for more and more of his passes, instead of them coming straight to the numbers on their jerseys.


    I don't think Hasselbeck has changed that much. If fact, he's performing better than I expected him to do given all the changes. This season he's completing 65.5% of his passes, 9th in the NFL (better than Rodgers, Vick, Brady, Rivers...). He can run when needed, and is a fiery and vocal leader on the field.

    One of Hasselbeck's recurring problems, though, is throwing interceptions. He was 6th in the NFL in how often he threw picks, and is around that this season already. Obviously that won't last w/Carroll, so if Matt doesn't improve in that category we'll see just how good Charlie is and whether he is in fact an improvement or not.

    At the end of the day, Matt produces for the Seahawks and will give us some victories. I really don't think we want to tinker with the most important position on our team when we're hovering around first in our division.
    User avatar
    OlympicDreams
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 156
    Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:41 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 5:06 pm
  • Well that's not saying much...Dilfer won a Super Bowl surrounded by "the right pieces".

    A great QB is someone who can thrive outside of the "system" when it breaks down or changes. Matt has struggled without Holmgren, and many of us have pointed the finger at other players. Maybe reality is about to hit us in the face - as has recently happened with other players (overvaluing). Hass is definetely not an ideal fit for Bates' system.
    "You don't always get to play playoff games at home, or conference championships at home, or superbowls at home. You have to have the mindset that you can play to your potential wherever you are." - Pete Carroll
    User avatar
    nwHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 547
    Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 11:14 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 5:10 pm
  • hawksman53 wrote:
    Donk70 wrote:His passes lacked zip and he underthrew alot. I question his going deep on 4th and 2.

    UMMMMM Yeah. why the hell do you go to the back of the endzone on 4th and 3. especially to Deion Branch


    Hi Guys, just jumping in here to point out that the play call was a screen to Jones. Turns out Denver double covered Jones on the play (by mistake? - see Hass and Carroll quotes on this)

    Branch was a checkdown.

    Nice thread here...carry on
    Idle vaporings of a mind diseased
    Image
    User avatar
    VaporHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1533
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:47 am
    Location: Seattle


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 5:15 pm
  • Love the team not the player..

    That is my moto... Lets see what happens over the next few games...
    redeye81
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1239
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:58 pm
    Location: Boise


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 5:27 pm
  • nwHawk wrote:Well that's not saying much...Dilfer won a Super Bowl surrounded by "the right pieces".

    A great QB is someone who can thrive outside of the "system" when it breaks down or changes. Matt has struggled without Holmgren, and many of us have pointed the finger at other players. Maybe reality is about to hit us in the face - as has recently happened with other players (overvaluing). Hass is definetely not an ideal fit for Bates' system.


    Again, this view requires selective observation. It requires forgetting him going 10 for 11 in one stretch in the SF game. It requires ignoring all the skills he's still showing. The type of QB you are talking about comes along once every ten years. If you're going to wish for that to get to the Super Bowl, you might as well wish for a Walter Payton and a Cortez Kennedy while you're at it. Meanwhile the Seahawks are close right now. Maybe his actual words about the game will help:

    “I think in a way it’s almost encouraging because the stuff that we did wrong, or that I did wrong, is stuff that we all know we can fix and get fixed,” said quarterback Matt Hasselbeck, who threw three interceptions. “So I think in a strange way there’s a lot of optimism after watching the film, because I think we see how good we can be. ... There’s a lot to be excited about and I think a lot that can be corrected quickly.”
    "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


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 5:50 pm
  • JohnnyB wrote:He doesn't have a terrible arm. His arm strength is just as good as when the Seahawks won the Super Bowl (on the field). His arm strength is just as good as some of the best QBs who ever played the game, like Montana, Staubach, Unitas, and Tarkenton. That doesn't mean Hasselbeck is a strong armed QB. But no offense actually needs a strong armed QB. It can be an advantage in some situations, but it's accuracy that matters far more. Hasselbeck has more than enough of that to take this team all the way with a good enough team around him.


    You are completely missing the point of my argument. Its not whether Hass is,was, or can be good, its whether he fits what Bates wants to do on offense or not, which he doesn't.
    I hate Tim Ruskell.
    User avatar
    Trrrroy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2853
    Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:24 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 6:14 pm
  • JohnnyB I hope your not gonna be disappointed.. yet to be determined ..

    That said.. I repeat "Love the team not the player"
    redeye81
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1239
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:58 pm
    Location: Boise


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 6:25 pm
  • Trrrroy wrote:
    JohnnyB wrote:He doesn't have a terrible arm. His arm strength is just as good as when the Seahawks won the Super Bowl (on the field). His arm strength is just as good as some of the best QBs who ever played the game, like Montana, Staubach, Unitas, and Tarkenton. That doesn't mean Hasselbeck is a strong armed QB. But no offense actually needs a strong armed QB. It can be an advantage in some situations, but it's accuracy that matters far more. Hasselbeck has more than enough of that to take this team all the way with a good enough team around him.


    You are completely missing the point of my argument. Its not whether Hass is,was, or can be good, its whether he fits what Bates wants to do on offense or not, which he doesn't.


    Your point is that he is a "terrible fit." That's wrong. He might not be the best possible fit, but he is more than good enough to, as Bates put it "make all the throws" the QB needs to make in his offense. I mean, Bates even said so, I don't know what more proof you would want. Oh yeah, actually I do. And you're going to get that proof this season when the Seahawks make it to the playoffs and Hasselbeck gets re-signed. Ready?
    "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


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 6:57 pm
  • JohnnyB wrote:I mean, Bates even said so


    Aren't you the guy who did all the coachspeak stuff?

    And you're going to get that proof this season when the Seahawks make it to the playoffs and Hasselbeck gets re-signed. Ready?


    And if that happens (Matt getting resigned, not the playoffs) I'll eat a big fat pile of crow. But, I just don't see Carroll resigning a nearly 36 year old to lead this young offense. Why pay so much for Whitehurst and sign him to a two year deal, if you now Matt is the guy you want behind center for 4 more years? Why haven't they signed him already if they know he's the guy? Why risk losing him in free agency? I just don't see it, that doesn't mean it won't happen, but I'd be extremely surprised if it did. I fully expect this team to go the way of the Packers and Eagles.
    I hate Tim Ruskell.
    User avatar
    Trrrroy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2853
    Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:24 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 7:00 pm
  • Trrrroy wrote:
    JohnnyB wrote:He doesn't have a terrible arm. His arm strength is just as good as when the Seahawks won the Super Bowl (on the field). His arm strength is just as good as some of the best QBs who ever played the game, like Montana, Staubach, Unitas, and Tarkenton. That doesn't mean Hasselbeck is a strong armed QB. But no offense actually needs a strong armed QB. It can be an advantage in some situations, but it's accuracy that matters far more. Hasselbeck has more than enough of that to take this team all the way with a good enough team around him.


    You are completely missing the point of my argument. Its not whether Hass is,was, or can be good, its whether he fits what Bates wants to do on offense or not, which he doesn't.


    Evidently you know more about what Bates wants then he does. I look forward to you getting ahold of him and letting him know that he is not playing the QB that HE wants to play. I love it when people try to read other peoples minds.
    Matt is there guy for right now, and thankfully only the Coaches get to decide when or if he is replaced. Let me know how that whole consulting gig goes for you, OK! :stirthepot:
    User avatar
    lacenterhawk
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 248
    Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 7:55 am
    Location: La Center, Washington


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 7:03 pm
  • wow. people here putting hass in column with breese, farve? there's more than koolaide in that koolaide.

    people who have said many times over there is no hate are correct, and I too agree with love the team, not the player. good luck telling some bullish fans that though. it's unreal.

    no hate, just fact.

    the SF win - first, you can thank your defense for the majority of that game win. Matt was average and serviceable that day at best ( because , really he's an average qb overall ). defense wins games and that was shown that day.
    add to this it was season game 1 in our incredibly tough stadium (awesome btw) and that SF was not playing like the SF that should have been there.

    enter the reverse of this with Denver game unfortunately. our qb stunk it up to high heaven, our PR compiled it with a fumble and our d was called upon in mile high 120 degree weather far too much. Denver's o is tough, but even so the d eventually wore down.

    Lot's of factors but none of it points to signs Hass is honestly a top tier qb I'm afraid, and that's what some are insinuating. I sure like the guy but when it's said it's time to look into our next qb to lead a rebuilding team, I'd have to agree. other than obvious and consistent frustration with the situation (it's kind of sad I'll admit), just as the rest of the team is a rebuild , it's time it applies to the qb position. whether it's CW or not is completely unknown, but the problem is known IMO. 35 is a very real number I'm afraid. :(

    speaking of CW, it's complete BS saying the guy cannot be a solid qb. i wont listen to a word of that nonsense. nobody here knows anything about that I'm afraid. the only thing you can do is put him in the pit and go to work in finding out. if worse after given proper time, you now know and you move on in finding it. but talk of preseason? really? too funny.

    oh well, there is a lot to be excited about though withthis new team. this topic is a bit sad in comparison. like Matt but think it's time.
    cknoxxhawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 474
    Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 6:05 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 7:12 pm
  • [quote="cknoxxhawk"]
    no hate, just fact.

    the SF win - Matt was average and serviceable that day at best funny.

    /quote]

    Wow, So where does the fact come in. Sounds like opinion to me. One of the higher QB ratings for the week. Started slow and came on strong against a team that was suppose to kick our butt! Yes it was the def., also the off. also the special teams. Wait. wait, you mean it took a team effort! WOW, But Matt had nothing to do with that and was just serviceable. GIVE me A Break. Talk about opinions and over dramatizing. :stirthepot:
    User avatar
    lacenterhawk
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 248
    Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 7:55 am
    Location: La Center, Washington


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 7:24 pm
  • enter the reverse of this with Denver game unfortunately. our qb stunk it up to high heaven, our PR compiled it with a fumble and our d was called upon in mile high 120 degree weather far too much. Denver's o is tough, but even so the d eventually wore down.


    Um, the Seahawk turnovers by Hasselbeck came deep in Denver territory. The Seahawk D didn't eventually wear down, it let Denver drive all the way down the full field each time. If the D would have been able to stop Denver at all (Denver punted only once, right?) it would have been a whole different game. Hass's interceptions were done in the least damaging place they could have been. Forgot about that, eh?

    The Seahawk QB also marched the Seahawks up and down the field, but because the Seahawks lost, some fans apparently need a scapegoat. To do it they need to rewrite history.
    "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


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 7:29 pm
  • something that stood out

    "love the team not the player"

    almost brought a tear to my eye, no truer words have been spoken. we won't win a SB with Hass. Lets just be real here, Brees and Favre are SB winning QB's. Hass shouldn't be mentioned with them, Hass is like the "well i almost had one". And i'm tired of exuses, if Hass was a true leader, he'd get in the receivers faces and tell 'em to get open (which they are Hass has declining eye sight or something), a leader tries to get players to play to their full potential. I"ve never viewed Matt as a leader. Seneca showed better leadership in that game against the Rams where he went nuts on the O-Line and they didn't mess up again that whole game. I don't care who the QB is, i don't expect much from this team this year anyway (check the history). But Matts play in Denver was an embarassment, and it was an embarassment last year. One game when he has the energy of the home crowd behind him on opening day doesn't mean anything to me. Perform or get the hell off the field.
    Image
    3elieve
    User avatar
    Throwdown
    * NET Baller *
     
    Posts: 19153
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:02 am
    Location: Graham, WA


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 7:29 pm
  • well ok, but this is a forum, every post like this is opinion. one would assume that's understood. the facts are Matt's recent int history (one I would change if I could ).
    cknoxxhawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 474
    Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 6:05 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 7:31 pm
  • JohnnyB wrote:
    enter the reverse of this with Denver game unfortunately. our qb stunk it up to high heaven, our PR compiled it with a fumble and our d was called upon in mile high 120 degree weather far too much. Denver's o is tough, but even so the d eventually wore down.


    Um, the Seahawk turnovers by Hasselbeck came deep in Denver territory. The Seahawk D didn't eventually wear down, it let Denver drive all the way down the full field each time. If the D would have been able to stop Denver at all (Denver punted only once, right?) it would have been a whole different game. Hass's interceptions were done in the least damaging place they could have been. Forgot about that, eh?

    The Seahawk QB also marched the Seahawks up and down the field, but because the Seahawks lost, some fans apparently need a scapegoat. To do it they need to rewrite history.


    Yeah, that is who is re-writing history :roll:


    Hass played like garbage.


    Guess how many times Seattle punted?

    Twice, once before the 4th quarter

    Guess how many times Denver punted?

    Three times, once before the 4th quarter


    How is it that both teams punted once in 3 quarters yet one team was blowing out the other (24-7) heading into the final quarter?


    Answer: Turnovers, 3 to be exact, 2 by the veteran leader and captain of the team and this ignores the 4th and 2 play where that same veteran leader failed to even give his team a chance to make a play by throwing the ball through the endzone.



    Matt gets the blame because Matt is the reason the team was out of the game going into the 4th quarter, he plays good (not great and not an unreasonable expectation) and Seattle is most likely within 1 score going into the 4th quarter.
    Last edited by MARTYREDwarner on Tue Sep 21, 2010 7:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 7:33 pm
  • oh I dunno, not questioning Matt's past leadership. just saying that he's dealing with his own game issues and that then affects the leadership we all once knew.
    cknoxxhawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 474
    Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 6:05 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 7:56 pm
  • Matt gets the blame (call it a scapegoat if you want) because Matt is the reason the team was out of the game going into the 4th quarter, he plays good (not great and not an unreasonable expectation) and Seattle is most likely within 1 score going into the 4th quarter.


    Yeah, so according to you, even though the interceptions gave up the ball deeper than you'd expect from any punt and Denver had to drive the full length of the field and score, the blame all goes to Hasselbeck and none to the defense. ...Riiiiiiiight.
    "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


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 8:07 pm
  • Who said that?

    I certainly never have, I blame both.

    That said, Matt plays like a leader should and Seattle has a chance in a shoot out.


    Both defenses sucked, one offense took advantage, the other did not because it's leader failed to deliver when needed. That is last Sunday from a factual perspective.


    More to the point, how are red zone turnovers somehow now "better than punts"

    When did the job of the offense become to pin the other offense deep? News to me, I thought the goal was to score points. Worst case (I repeat worst case) Seattle should have been down 17-6 at halftime instead of 17-0, yet somehow its excused because its "better than a punt"

    Seriously?


    Can't you just admit Matt played like garbage? Even he can admit it.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 8:15 pm
  • warner28 wrote:Who said that?

    I certainly never have, you are the one that wants to blame the defense only, I blame both.

    That said, Matt plays like a leader should and Seattle has a chance in a shoot out, you just can't admit that obvious truth to yourself.

    Fine, your call. Me, staying in reality.


    Both defenses sucked, one offense took advantage, the other did not because it's leader failed to deliver when needed. That is last Sunday from a factual perspective.


    The question is not whether or not Matt had a bad game, of course it wasn't his best game. Of course if he would have played better the team would have had more of a chance. That's all obvious. The apparently difficult to understand part is about how all QBs have bad stretches and it doesn't make them bad QBs.
    "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


PreviousNext


It is currently Wed Oct 01, 2014 6:34 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