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 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: 266
    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: 19359
    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


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 8:18 pm
  • JohnnyB wrote: The apparently difficult to understand part is about how all QBs have bad stretches and it doesn't make them bad QBs.


    The problem is that Matt's "bad stretch" is going on three years.
    I hate Tim Ruskell.
    User avatar
    Trrrroy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2876
    Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:24 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 8:20 pm
  • JohnnyB wrote:
    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.

    So you're projecting in order to not address the situation. You spend a whole post explaining why YOU THINK people are being emotional and not objective. Yet, you have no actual idea of the emotional state of some of us as we post this. I just got done rewatching the game yet again. I slow it down. Just wastched Matt throw it away on fourth down. No25 is breaking open right in front of Matt and would have had a TD, but Matt throws to the back of the endzone. No pressure on Matt.

    That isn't me being emotional. That's me using my own two eyes.

    The reason Matt is getting worse is twofold: One, he is getting old. Two, he's been shellshocked for the past couple of years - and even going back further than that, ever since the Hutch debacle. He might not ever return to the form he once had.

    Or he might.

    But when his oline protects him like it did yesterday, and he throws away so many bad plays, then one has to wonder if perhaps he's never going to go back to his old form.

    I wasn't a big fan of the Whitehurst move and I've made my feelings known even when it was unpopular. But I think those who clamor to give the guy a chnce are probably right. I think Hass MIGHT regain his swagger and confidence and he MIGHT not have lost his physical skills as badly as he looks to me to have done. But I'm not betting on it.

    Unfortunately, I'm not betting on Whitehurst either. I think the guys a bust. I read his scouting report and all his negatives are STILL his negatives. He's not the future.
    Last edited by SalishHawkFan on Tue Sep 21, 2010 8:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    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: 4948
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:39 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 8:21 pm
  • Trrrroy wrote:
    JohnnyB wrote: The apparently difficult to understand part is about how all QBs have bad stretches and it doesn't make them bad QBs.


    The problem is that Matt's "bad stretch" is going on three years.



    Not only that but if anyone even dares to suggest its more than just 1 game they are a 'hater'


    That is stupid, Matt played terrible Sunday, that is a fact and has nothing to do with hate.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 8:22 pm
  • I think consistency of play on the road will finally be realized by this team and this coaching staff THIS season. By consistency of play, I mean eliminating all the bad things like the picks and blowing 3rd and long.

    Of the last several seasons where we have just been plagued by these same problems over and over (well, mostly blowing it on 3rd down) I think this season is going to the break out season.

    It's unfortunately going to take several games....but again, moreso than at any other time before, I am feeling really good about the team gelling and maturing where those mistakes won't be made as often as they are now.

    And yes...I still have faith in Hass. I think as he gets more comfortable in this new offensive scheme, his new receivers, and his new OL, he will improve.
    User avatar
    Mjolnir
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 350
    Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 9:57 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 8:24 pm
  • I would love to see these dozen Pro Bowl QBs that have had a 5 game stretch with 13 picks after their 3rd year in the league, I ain't looking but I'd love to see it if true.
    Last edited by MARTYREDwarner on Tue Sep 21, 2010 8:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 8:30 pm
  • warner28 wrote:I would love to see these dozen Pro Bowl QBs that have had a 5 game stretch with 13 picks after their 3rd year in the league, I ain't looking but I'd love to see it if true.


    Just did a quick check. Even Favre in his worst years didn't have a stretch that bad.

    EDIT: I guess I'm wrong, lol.
    I hate Tim Ruskell.
    User avatar
    Trrrroy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2876
    Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:24 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 8:31 pm
  • "I love Hass, but ever since the Super Bowl he`s gone the way of Jake Delhomme or Marc Bulger. Sad, but it`s what has happened"


    Yea because he sucked so bad in 2007 when he carried this team with NO run game.

    I think we're seeing a guy on the downside of his prime. He's still athletic. Heck, he got there QUICK on that 20 yard TD run up the middle. I think his decision making is him pushing too hard. And on one INT, PC claimed he had a guy hitting him when he threw it, thus causing him to underthrow Carlson a bit on it. But I'm seeing lack of arm strength causing his passes to get there slower than they used to, so DBs can undercut or jump the routes. He's savvy enough to make them pay though, as evidenced in the SF game. He's going to win us games, lose us games, and basically be above average to mediocre this year.

    At some point, we're going to see if Whitehurst can be the guy. We HAVE to know by the end of the season, because one of the best drafts for QBs in the last decade is looming; if we're going to get a franchise guy, this is the time. Luck, Mallett or Locker can be had in the middle of the first round. If we're thinking Charlie is the guy, then go with DE if our guy is there with the 1st pick.
    Hawks46
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4044
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:01 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 8:31 pm
  • warner28 wrote:
    Trrrroy wrote:
    JohnnyB wrote: The apparently difficult to understand part is about how all QBs have bad stretches and it doesn't make them bad QBs.


    The problem is that Matt's "bad stretch" is going on three years.



    Not only that but if anyone even dares to suggest its more than just 1 game they are a 'hater'


    That is stupid, Matt played terrible Sunday, that is a fact and has nothing to do with hate.



    Good points made in the above posts. As I posted in another thread, Matt's QB rating has been in the toilet in 2008 and 2009. Now, during that same time, Seneca Wallace was a better, more productive QB than Matt Hasselbeck. Nobody wanted Seneca. Whitehurst is even worse. So they cling to Matt. Yes, he was injured. Yes, our o-line was in shambles.

    But that wasn't the case against Denver and Matt still stunk up the joint.
    Last edited by SalishHawkFan on Tue Sep 21, 2010 8:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    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: 4948
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:39 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 8:33 pm
  • Trrrroy wrote:
    warner28 wrote:I would love to see these dozen Pro Bowl QBs that have had a 5 game stretch with 13 picks after their 3rd year in the league, I ain't looking but I'd love to see it if true.


    Just did a quick check. Even Favre in his worst years didn't have a stretch that bad.

    EDIT: I guess I'm wrong, lol.


    Nope, I was wrong, got TDs and INT mixed up on the football reference page.

    He had 15 TDs in 5 games in 2007.


    After re-checking the proper column for Favre the worst I could find was 11 in 5 games in 2005, 5 of those came in 1 game


    Just a quick glance and not exhaustive but it appears that even the ultimate gunslinger never had this bad of a stretch.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 8:45 pm
  • Last one I am going to check, thought Manning might pull it off since he passes so much but like Favre, 11 is his high after his rookie year (had 12 in his first 5 career games), this despite throwing 6 in 1 game back in 2007.

    Still never had 13 in a 5 game stretch.

    Someone want to check Elway? I could believe it about him (and he is the best QB ever IMO).

    Edit: Checked Elway too, 11 was his worst 5 game stretch (sensing a theme here) in 1992.


    I'm done now.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Tue Sep 21, 2010 10:04 pm
  • cknoxxhawk wrote: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.



    not really picking on you here, but this is basically what all the hass detractors (haters) have been saying through this whole thread, and for quite a while actually. The problem with this theory is that you all say that it's time for Whitehurst and Hass isn't the man to win the games, but I didn't know that the fans on a message board knew better about who was the best quarterback on the field and in practice. How is it that we haven't seen enough of Whitehurst to judge him not good enough but you have seen enough to judge him ready to play over the man the COACHES have said is the clear starterand that it's not Charlie's time yet? Funny how one side is pre judging without knowledge and the other side thinks they know better than the coaches that he is ready to play now with the same set of (or lack of) knowledge. How does that work? Bottome line is that our coaches, our players, alot of the fans and most of the NFL experts believe that Hasselbeck is the best qb on our team and that trumps the sad arguments of emotional fans after a bad game
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 14884
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:00 am
  • kidhawk wrote:
    cknoxxhawk wrote: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.



    not really picking on you here, but this is basically what all the hass detractors (haters) have been saying through this whole thread, and for quite a while actually. The problem with this theory is that you all say that it's time for Whitehurst and Hass isn't the man to win the games, but I didn't know that the fans on a message board knew better about who was the best quarterback on the field and in practice. How is it that we haven't seen enough of Whitehurst to judge him not good enough but you have seen enough to judge him ready to play over the man the COACHES have said is the clear starterand that it's not Charlie's time yet? Funny how one side is pre judging without knowledge and the other side thinks they know better than the coaches that he is ready to play now with the same set of (or lack of) knowledge. How does that work? Bottome line is that our coaches, our players, alot of the fans and most of the NFL experts believe that Hasselbeck is the best qb on our team and that trumps the sad arguments of emotional fans after a bad game



    I hear ya, but I'm not saying pull him for the chargers here, just that it is time I'm afraid and this will likely be his last go.
    but none of us really know.
    cknoxxhawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 474
    Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 6:05 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 4:56 am
  • When it was Dilfer vs Hass, I supported Hass. I think history has proven that the right call. Today I support Whitehurst. I think that Hass still has the requisite skills to be an effective starter, but he is gun shy. When a player loses their nerve, it's over. He is checking down against phantom rushes. It's time to give Charlie a chance. Perhaps Charlie is no better, but he deserves the same opportunity to develop that Hass deserved 10 years ago.

    While the division is still in play - and it definitely is - I understand the desire to play the vet. But I am no longer sure that Matt gives us the best chance to win the division. Matt Hasselbeck will always be one of my favorite Seahawks and it really sucks to see what's happened to him, but it is time to move on.
    "It was so loud Derrick Coleman heard it."
    User avatar
    Thunderhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 502
    Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 6:44 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 6:10 am
  • When Coach Carrol decides Hasselbeck's time is done as our starter QB, then and only then will I be cool with it, he is the better of the two between him and Whitehurst right now, and if he pulls the plug prematurely he could lose a lot of support, in a rebuild he needs all the support he can get...The team looks promising so far minus the few key mistakes made in the Broncos game, those will not be in every game obviously, and we have a good shot to take our division this year, we need to compete to win, and we are doing just that by fielding the best players, not by fielding possible future hopefuls...Our pass rush on defense is the primary focus imo at this point, it needs to be more consistent if at all possible, our offense needs more time to gel and make plays, a good game should truly not be lost by two or three turnovers, because a good all around team can make up for the mistake, although, clearly from a disadvantage point.
    Seahawksfan10
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 361
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 11:12 am
    Location: Houston, Tx


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 6:26 am
  • Trrrroy wrote:
    JohnnyB wrote: The apparently difficult to understand part is about how all QBs have bad stretches and it doesn't make them bad QBs.


    The problem is that Matt's "bad stretch" is going on three years.


    You're proving my point. In order to make this statement you have to completely forget just 7 days prior when he had a 105 QB rating and had a string of 10 for 11 completions.
    "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
Wed Sep 22, 2010 6:30 am
  • JohnnyB wrote:
    Trrrroy wrote:
    JohnnyB wrote: The apparently difficult to understand part is about how all QBs have bad stretches and it doesn't make them bad QBs.


    The problem is that Matt's "bad stretch" is going on three years.


    You're proving my point. In order to make this statement you have to completely forget just 7 days prior when he had a 105 QB rating and had a string of 10 for 11 completions.


    sun shines on a dogs ass once in a while
    Image
    3elieve
    User avatar
    Throwdown
    * NET Baller *
     
    Posts: 19359
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:02 am
    Location: Graham, WA


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 6:53 am
  • warner28 wrote:
    Trrrroy wrote:
    warner28 wrote:I would love to see these dozen Pro Bowl QBs that have had a 5 game stretch with 13 picks after their 3rd year in the league, I ain't looking but I'd love to see it if true.


    Just did a quick check. Even Favre in his worst years didn't have a stretch that bad.

    EDIT: I guess I'm wrong, lol.


    Nope, I was wrong, got TDs and INT mixed up on the football reference page.

    He had 15 TDs in 5 games in 2007.


    After re-checking the proper column for Favre the worst I could find was 11 in 5 games in 2005, 5 of those came in 1 game


    Just a quick glance and not exhaustive but it appears that even the ultimate gunslinger never had this bad of a stretch.


    You better check a fourth time, and then a fifth and sixth. And then maybe just give up and listen to what I'm saying. As a fan you need a scapegoat, you want something to be true so you only see what you want to see. This is no condemnation. I'm sure I do the same thing.

    So first of all Matt has not thrown 15 in five games, he's thrown 13 in five games. Favre threw 14 in a stretch of five games in 98. Just in the 'F's there's Dan Fouts, one of the most consistent passers I have ever seen and a perennial Pro Bowler, threw 16 in a five game stretch in 1986. Plenty more can be found.
    "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
Wed Sep 22, 2010 7:17 am
  • Throwdown wrote:
    JohnnyB wrote:
    Trrrroy wrote:The problem is that Matt's "bad stretch" is going on three years.


    You're proving my point. In order to make this statement you have to completely forget just 7 days prior when he had a 105 QB rating and had a string of 10 for 11 completions.


    sun shines on a dogs ass once in a while


    Actually, I think there's something worth looking at there.

    It's interesting how the flow of a game can cause a QB to look really good or really bad. what I mean by that is football is a little like poker in that everything is about the situation, and playing your best hand given the situation.

    For example, if your team has controlled the game and is up by 3 scores in the 3rd quarter, the opposing defense is going to be a little more passive because they don't want to give up the big play and have the game put out of reach. with little to no pass rush and soft zone coverage, the QB can just sit back there and pick the defense apart at his leisure. He's going to have some nice looking numbers at the end of the day.

    Opposite example: playing on the road, down 3 scores by the second half. you're going to have to throw the ball to get back into the game and the opposing defense can afford to give up some big gains, and they don't have to respect the run so much. they're going to blitz, jump routes, try to keep your offense on it's heels. situation is ripe for poor quarterback play.

    What I guess I'm trying to say here is when things are going well and the offense can get into a rthyhm, matt tends to play well. When faced with adversity, he has a tendency to try and do too much and hand the ball over. On that opening drive in denver, what happened when the wheels started to come off a little and the offense got pushed back after having 1st and goal at the 1? ???? bueller? bueller? anyone?
    RIP Les. We will miss you.
    User avatar
    Happy
    * NET Lead Admin *
     
    Posts: 8601
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:47 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 7:26 am
  • If you're talking multiple pro bowl QB's, then yea I can see your point, but the most obvious was Cutler last year. His whole year stunk, he's playing well now, and went to at least 1 pro bowl prior.
    Hawks46
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4044
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:01 pm


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 7:27 am
  • Throwdown wrote:The apparently difficult to understand part is about how all QBs have bad stretches and it doesn't make them bad QBs.


    The problem is that Matt's "bad stretch" is going on three years.[/quote]

    You're proving my point. In order to make this statement you have to completely forget just 7 days prior when he had a 105 QB rating and had a string of 10 for 11 completions.[/quote]

    sun shines on a dogs ass once in a while


    But of course you can't deny that it really hasn't been a long stretch of nothing but bad play, like it would be with someone who actually wasn't a good player. Even the Denver game was mostly good play by Hasselbeck, interrupted by the interceptions and a string of about five passes where his accuracy left him (again, the same thing happens to every QB at times).

    All you Mattractors, or whatever you want to call yourselves, will soon be eating your words anyway. After what we saw from the Oline in Denver, I expect the offense to do very well this year, with Hasselbeck leading the way.
    "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
Wed Sep 22, 2010 7:39 am
  • JohnnyB wrote:All you Mattractors, or whatever you want to call yourselves, will soon be eating your words anyway. After what we saw from the Oline in Denver, I expect the offense to do very well this year, with Hasselbeck leading the way.


    Why do you insist on lumping everyone that has concerns about matt into one group and labeling them with a derogatory term? What purpose does that serve anyway?
    RIP Les. We will miss you.
    User avatar
    Happy
    * NET Lead Admin *
     
    Posts: 8601
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:47 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 7:52 am
  • JohnnyB wrote:You better check a fourth time, and then a fifth and sixth. And then maybe just give up and listen to what I'm saying. As a fan you need a scapegoat, you want something to be true so you only see what you want to see. This is no condemnation. I'm sure I do the same thing.

    So first of all Matt has not thrown 15 in five games, he's thrown 13 in five games. Favre threw 14 in a stretch of five games in 98. Just in the 'F's there's Dan Fouts, one of the most consistent passers I have ever seen and a perennial Pro Bowler, threw 16 in a five game stretch in 1986. Plenty more can be found.



    You are correct, found those, and am not surprised. Again, I just took a quick look. Still not sure you could find a dozen such stretches but maybe you can.

    The interceptions really are not the reason I view Matt in a poor light, its his entire game. Interceptions happen, the problems with Matt are timing of those interceptions and not stepping up when needed.

    On Sunday the Seahawks needed Matt, who is their veteran leader and captain, to step up and keep them in a winnable game and instead he played like a deer in the headlights.

    Sorry, you can excuse it all you want, you can claim its just emotion all you want, the facts speak for themselves, Seattle had a chance last Sunday if Matt plays better, Matt failed to step up when a leader needed to step up.

    That is the fact, even Matt admits it.

    Not sure why you have to bad mouth people that simply agree with Matt.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 7:54 am
  • Hawks46 wrote:If you're talking multiple pro bowl QB's, then yea I can see your point, but the most obvious was Cutler last year. His whole year stunk, he's playing well now, and went to at least 1 pro bowl prior.


    I think that's a perfect example. I think you have to evaluate a QB's play in the context of a large number of factors and that's what can make it so hard to figure out if some guy is really good, a bum, or more likely something in between. Certianly provides lots of material for interesting discussions though right?
    RIP Les. We will miss you.
    User avatar
    Happy
    * NET Lead Admin *
     
    Posts: 8601
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:47 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 8:48 am
  • Stretch of bad play? This is the argument? Bad play on a team that has been purged or over half the roster from last season's final snap? We have been a horrible team over the past several years. Who has been consistently good on our team in that span? who? They've all ben consistently bad (by all I will allow that there may be the odd exception but most starters have not looked great over the past few years). Now PC has come in and cleaned house, cutting players that weren't good enough to play for him and keeping others, making some starters into backups etc. With all that, it's a new team, a new regime with new schemes. Matt's had two games, one where he started poorly but overall had a pretty good outing, another where he started well (and you all weren't bitching when he was driving down the field) and made some mistakes. Every player has bad games. Matt is our starter today and that is all that matters. Those who want to call for whitehurst right now when the team is still tied for first in the division with actually a chance at making the playoffs need to chill out and let the coaches coach and stop all the bitching and moaning. If Charlie was so great he'd be playing. When Charlie is ready, he'll be playing. Right now Matt is playing so support the man for F's sake
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 14884
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 9:05 am
  • It doesn't matter who our QB is, if he has a bad game then everyone will complain about terrible he is. Good games they'll be praising him.

    If Hasselbeck has a good game this sunday, the haters will disappear and wait till he has another bad game. When the Seahawks win, its not because of Hass, even if he accounts for more than half the points like week 1 vs the Niners. Nah, its the team that won. But when the Seahawks lose, its Hasselbeck's fault.
    ~ The Stache'
    User avatar
    Zowert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1990
    Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:29 pm
    Location: Seattle


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 9:14 am
  • Zowert wrote:It doesn't matter who our QB is, if he has a bad game then everyone will complain about terrible he is. Good games they'll be praising him.

    If Hasselbeck has a good game this sunday, the haters will disappear and wait till he has another bad game. When the Seahawks win, its not because of Hass, even if he accounts for more than half the points like week 1 vs the Niners. Nah, its the team that won. But when the Seahawks lose, its Hasselbeck's fault.


    This is just silly.

    Matt got credit for week 1, he played a good game. Was he the difference in that game? Not in my opinion (looking at week 1 objectively and Matt was not the difference in that game, he played a role but was not the difference) but he got credit.

    Disagree with me all you want but a very very sound argument can be made that the difference in the game last Sunday was Matt's play.

    Its not just making stuff up, look at the stats, remember how the game was played, the difference was not our defense sucking (which they did) because Denver's defense also sucked, the difference was QB play. That is not some emotional hatred of Matt coming to the surface, it is a very very very reasonable opinion based on the facts of the game that was played last Sunday.

    The Matt 'supporters' crowd are ignoring what they saw and going off emotions, not the other way around.

    Seriously, bring up the defense all you want but Seattle punted less than Denver so the defense was NOT the difference. The difference was QB play last Sunday.

    Deal with it.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 9:19 am
  • disagree.

    Special teams turned the ball over after the defense got a stop early in the game. Some very questionable play calling on defense at times, one leading directly to a walk in TD. leaving points on the field on the 4th and 2 conversion attempt. carlson not adjusting his route on what would have been a big play.

    lots of blame to spread around. matt shot himself in the foot early which was totally his bad, but like I mentioned above, being down three scores makes your offense one dimensional and it's very difficult to overcome.
    RIP Les. We will miss you.
    User avatar
    Happy
    * NET Lead Admin *
     
    Posts: 8601
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:47 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 9:36 am
  • warner28 wrote:
    Zowert wrote:It doesn't matter who our QB is, if he has a bad game then everyone will complain about terrible he is. Good games they'll be praising him.

    If Hasselbeck has a good game this sunday, the haters will disappear and wait till he has another bad game. When the Seahawks win, its not because of Hass, even if he accounts for more than half the points like week 1 vs the Niners. Nah, its the team that won. But when the Seahawks lose, its Hasselbeck's fault.


    This is just silly.

    Matt got credit for week 1, he played a good game. Was he the difference in that game? Not in my opinion (looking at week 1 objectively and Matt was not the difference in that game, he played a role but was not the difference) but he got credit.

    Disagree with me all you want but a very very sound argument can be made that the difference in the game last Sunday was Matt's play.

    Its not just making stuff up, look at the stats, remember how the game was played, the difference was not our defense sucking (which they did) because Denver's defense also sucked, the difference was QB play. That is not some emotional hatred of Matt coming to the surface, it is a very very very reasonable opinion based on the facts of the game that was played last Sunday.

    The Matt 'supporters' crowd are ignoring what they saw and going off emotions, not the other way around.

    Seriously, bring up the defense all you want but Seattle punted less than Denver so the defense was NOT the difference. The difference was QB play last Sunday.

    Deal with it.


    So you think if Matt didn't run that heroic TD then the game would've turned out the same? Nah, that got the team all jacked and pumped.

    You say you're looking at this "objectively" but there is an obvious bias, especially since you have a history of Hassel-hating. You're just waiting for every little mistake he makes so you can some in here and say, "SEE! I told you so." If it wasn't Matt, it would be someone else. There always has to be a scapegoat.
    Last edited by Zowert on Wed Sep 22, 2010 9:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
    ~ The Stache'
    User avatar
    Zowert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1990
    Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:29 pm
    Location: Seattle


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 9:36 am
  • sadhappy,

    No one is claiming Matt is the ONLY one that gets the blame but again, look at it objectively.

    The Broncos defense sucked too so the defenses canceled each other out from a 'game changing' perspective.

    The 4th and 2 play, Matt did not give the team a chance to make a play, Matt (not the coaches, not anyone else) threw the ball out of the endzone.



    No one is making the claim that everyone else was perfect but just about everything but the QB play was even between the teams yet the team was blown out. Sorry but objectively speaking QB play was the difference last Sunday.

    Deny it if you choose but the tale of the tape says it was QB play.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 9:42 am
  • Zowert wrote:So you think if Matt didn't run that heroic TD then the game would've turned out the same? Nah, that got the team all jacked and pumped.



    Maybe, you can't prove that factually though, it may be true, may not be.

    Again Matt got credit for that game anyway.


    You can prove factually that Denver's defense also sucked last Sunday and that the difference in the game was turnovers, Matt was directly responsible for 2 of the 3 big ones, its not like Denver's defense made great plays, they were just terrible throws.


    Oh well, you have already proved you are going on nothing but emotion with the joke of a post you made earlier.

    I will stick to the tale of the tape and it shows that Matt played a miserable game last Sunday that cost Seattle a chance to win. Even Matt admits as much (as a leader should).
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 9:56 am
  • and Charlie Whitehurst is now the best answer? Ha yeah right!!
    xxrighteous1xx
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 302
    Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:55 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 9:56 am
  • JSeahawks 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:


    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.


    JS, I agree about Matt. I know it's a technicality but it wasn't Andrews that was called for holding, it was Locklear. Andrews got called for a false start a play earlier. They had the ball at the one yard line, the false start brought it back to the 6, and then the holding call on Lock took back to 21. Thus, the reason why Hass was throwing in the first place.
    User avatar
    hawkfan68
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 4183
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 9:58 am
  • xxrighteous1xx wrote:and Charlie Whitehurst is now the best answer? Ha yeah right!!


    Ding ding ding!
    ~ The Stache'
    User avatar
    Zowert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1990
    Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:29 pm
    Location: Seattle


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:01 am
  • Zowert wrote:
    xxrighteous1xx wrote:and Charlie Whitehurst is now the best answer? Ha yeah right!!


    Ding ding ding!


    I'd rather find out than go 8-8 with Matt.

    And for the record, I am far from convinced that Seattle will end up with a better record with Matt starting, we will never know since Matt is starting but its possible (unlikely but possible) that Whitehurst comes out and is incredible. Most likely he is average to slightly below average and the team finishes roughly exactly where they will finish with Matt starting and at least we know what to do at the QB position going forward.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:01 am
  • After 11 pages, the real question now is: Would anyone like a cookie?
    Super Bowl Champions XVLIII

    RIP Radish: Check your PMs. Upper right corner.
    User avatar
    Sarlacc83
    * NET Philistine *
     
    Posts: 15782
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:02 am
    Location: Portland, OR


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:02 am
  • warner28 wrote:
    Zowert wrote:
    xxrighteous1xx wrote:and Charlie Whitehurst is now the best answer? Ha yeah right!!


    Ding ding ding!


    I'd rather find out than go 8-8 with Matt.

    And for the record, I am far from convinced that Seattle will end up with a better record with Matt starting, we will never know since Matt is starting but its possible (unlikely but possible) that Whitehurst comes out and is incredible. Most likely he is average to slightly below average and the team finishes roughly exactly where they will finish with Matt starting and at least we know what to do at the QB position going forward.


    You honestly believe Charlie Whitehurst can lead this team better than Hasselbeck?!?!
    ~ The Stache'
    User avatar
    Zowert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1990
    Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:29 pm
    Location: Seattle


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:02 am
  • Zowert wrote:
    I am not bothered by anyone being critical of Matt, I am just tired of the same old crap every time the man makes a mistake. I think everyone gets it by now. Move on.

    Instead of blaming Matt every sunday, tell us what you would do? Sorry for being a prick, just tired of armchair quarterbacks telling a real QB what he did wrong.



    Pretty sure I have said what I would do many many many many times.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:03 am
  • Not only is Hass the best option for winning games for us, hes the best QB in this division hands down. Lets say that has has a bad game 1 out of every 3 games but guys like Smith and Anderson crap out 1 of every 2. We are still way ahead of the teams in our division at the position. Charlie at this gives you the same chance or less then an AS, or DA. So to say you just want to win games and state Hass doesn't give us the best chance, is foolish hope in Whitehurst.
    xxrighteous1xx
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 302
    Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:55 am


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:06 am
  • xxrighteous1xx wrote:Not only is Hass the best option for winning games for us, hes the best QB in this division hands down. Lets say that has has a bad game 1 out of every 3 games but guys like Smith and Anderson crap out 1 of every 2. We are still way ahead of the teams in our division at the position. Charlie at this gives you the same chance or less then an AS, or DA. So to say you just want to win games and state Hass doesn't give us the best chance, is foolish hope in Whitehurst.


    You don't get it though, Hass CAN'T have a bad game because we are on our way to the Superbowl remember! :sarcasm_on:
    ~ The Stache'
    User avatar
    Zowert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1990
    Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:29 pm
    Location: Seattle


Re: Objective look at Hasselbeck
Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:08 am
  • Zowert wrote:
    You honestly believe Charlie Whitehurst can lead this team better than Hasselbeck?!?!



    Did I say that?

    I don't see where I said that.

    What I said in a nutshell.

    Most likely he is average to slightly below average and the team finishes roughly exactly where they will finish with Matt starting and at least we know what to do at the QB position going forward.


    and

    I'd rather find out than go 8-8 with Matt.



    Missed where I claimed he WOULD do better, said might (although clarified that I thought it was doubtful).


    I do honestly believe that at the end of the day this team would finish roughly the same with Charlie or Matt starting. At this point I don't think Matt is capable of taking over a game and winning it for Seattle (I know you disagree) and I do think he is capable of falling apart and costing Seattle games (I know you disagree), I'd expect Whitehurst to be about the same, better physically but will make mistakes due to inexperience (Matt is making those mistakes despite experience because he is limited physically IMO).


    Better? No

    Not sure he'd be worse though.


    And again, I'd rather find out about Whitehurst in 2010 (when the Super Bowl ain't happening anyway) than wait and find out he sucks when the rest of the team is built.


    Call it unreasonable if you want but I think its the correct way to approach 2010.
    MARTYREDwarner
     


PreviousNext


It is currently Thu Dec 18, 2014 8:35 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE ARCHIVES ]




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest